Clerics Demand Pope's Removal

[yesdachi]

Well, since the other thread is still on a 24 hour hiatus I will start a new one and maybe a new conversation.

If you were the Pope what would you do?
Apologize? Call for war with Islam? Walk down the streets of Pakistan with a sandwich board that says “Prove me wrong and don’t kill me.”? Hide in the tower? Divert attention by allowing gay marriage? Bend over, drop trow and holler from the balcony “Kiss my crinkle star”? Offer to convert to Islam?
And don’t say kick out all the peepee touchers, it’s already been discussed.


The "pope, and all infidels, should know that no Muslim, under any circumstances, can tolerate an insult to the Prophet (Muhammad). ... If the West does not change its stance regarding Islam, it will face severe consequences," it said.

The story
By ASIF SHAHZAD, Associated Press Writer

LAHORE, Pakistan - About 1,000 Muslim clerics and religious scholars meeting Thursday in eastern Pakistan demanded the removal of Pope Benedict XVI for making what they called "insulting remarks" against Islam.

Benedict "should be removed from his position immediately for encouraging war and fanning hostility between various faiths" and "making insulting remarks" against Islam, said a joint statement issued by the clerics and scholars at the end of their one-day convention.

The "pope, and all infidels, should know that no Muslim, under any circumstances, can tolerate an insult to the Prophet (Muhammad). ... If the West does not change its stance regarding Islam, it will face severe consequences," it said.

The meeting was organized by the radical Islamic group Jamaat al-Dawat, which runs schools, colleges and medical clinics. In April, Washington put the group on a list of terrorist organizations for its alleged links with militants fighting in the Indian part of Kashmir.

The meeting came after the pope said Sunday he was "deeply sorry" about the reactions to his remarks and that they did not reflect his own opinions.

He said Wednesday that he has "deep respect" for Islam, but he did not offer an apology that was demanded by some Muslim leaders offended by his remarks in Germany last week.

The pope acknowledged that his remarks were open to misinterpretation, but insisted he had not intended to endorse a negative view of Islam.

In Germany, Benedict cited the words of a Byzantine emperor who characterized some of the teachings of the Prophet Muhammad as "evil and inhuman," particularly "his command to spread by the sword the faith."

"This quote unfortunately lent itself to be misunderstood," the pontiff said Wednesday. "In no way did I wish to make my own the words of the medieval emperor. I wished to explain that not religion and violence, but religion and reason go together."

The clerics and religious scholars said they did not regard Benedict's latest comments as an apology.

"The pope has neither accepted his mistake, nor apologized for his words," it said.

The statement also said jihad was not terrorism and that "Islam was not propagated with the sword, but it became popular and was accepted by the oppressed peoples of the world because of its universal values and teachings."

"Jihad is waged to rid an area, state, or the world of oppression, violence, cruelty, and terrorism, and bring peace and relief to the people. History is full of incidents where Muslims waged jihad to provide relief to people of many faiths, especially Jews and Christians," it said.

Pakistan is the world's second most populous country, and its people have held small, peaceful rallies since the publication of pope's remarks about Islam.

[sharrukin]

Tell them;

Repent of your wicked lives, and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ, or suffer the sword of Christendom.

That would at least give them an actual reason to be upset! Entertaining as well!

[rory_20_uk]

So... a Westener saying something moderately offensive is the causus belli as this means that Muslims are forced to violence :inquisitive: What is this? Are they really that stupid?

I was under the impression that there are passages that state that if people can not be converted by the work then the sword is plan B

~:smoking:

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

A prime example of the pot calling the kettle black.

(I love these English cliches) :laugh4:

[Red Peasant]

Pakistan is the world's second most populous country, and its people have held small, peaceful rallies since the publication of pope's remarks about Islam.

Just about sums up the usefulness of this source for me.

Now let me go and interview some extremist Christian fundies what they think of Islam and what should be done with it. Representative?

[Silver Rusher]

Second most populous country?

Let's see:

1. China - 1,313,844,000
2. India - 1,103,371,000
3. USA - 299,779,731
4. Indonesia - 222,781,000
5. Brazil - 187,104,851
6. Pakistan - 158,130,500

My pedantry meets no bounds. ~;)

[Duke of Gloucester]

Maybe they are only counting the Moslems

[AntiochusIII]

6. Pakistan - 158,130,500I never realized Pakistan is that populous. :stupido2:

Ah well, I should've realized it's next to India. And was once a part of India.

On the topic: extremists are everywhere; extremists are fools. And the strengths of foolishness is like that of a dumb guar*: strong and easily manipulated. Pakistan has a lot of groups that will gain something from further increase of religious extremism, no?

And that news certainly is crap. Any average street Joe would recall in a second that it's either China or India that is the most populous, while the same average Joe might skip the USA, Indonesia, or Brazil. But since it claims it's the second largest country with such two obvious choices already above it...

Not that bad journalism isn't bad journalism in the first place, of course, and totally biased at that.

*Morrowind ~;)

[Red Peasant]

Maybe they are only counting the Moslems

That's their problem.

[Silver Rusher]

Maybe they are only counting the Moslems
If it is only Islam then yes it is the second largest Muslim country in the world (after Indonesia) but as Red Peasant says, that's still a bit of a :no::no:.

[Divinus Arma]

The irony and hypocrisy of it all is simply too much to stand.

I think we'll see an assasination here. Then the world will really take a crap. I can't wait.


Why is the world simply trying to ignore or appease the Islamofascist menace? A grand great war has been brewing under the facade of middle eastern stability. The petty tyrants have oppressed the islamic people for too long, and have created a breeding ground for disenfranchised extremists led by madmen who blame everything on the Jews and the United States.

The war will continue and grow. Open your eyes Europe. You will be the battleground. The angry Islamic populations of France and UK will not tolerate their inferior status for much longer.

And eventually the United States, ever your ally, will bail you out of your self-inflicted predicament once again.

[Duke of Gloucester]

The angry Islamic populations of France and UK will not tolerate their inferior status for much longer.

Exactly what "inferior status"?


And eventually the United States, ever your ally, will bail you out of your self-inflicted predicament once again.

Only if and when it is in your own self-interest to do so. (Which it won't be because we don't have much oil left)

[Red Peasant]

The ir
The war will continue and grow. Open your eyes Europe. You will be the battleground. The angry Islamic populations of France and UK will not tolerate their inferior status for much longer.

And eventually the United States, ever your ally, will bail you out of your self-inflicted predicament once again.

What inferior status is that then? My Muslim neighbours, some friends, some not, can vote, work, and take a crap just as freely as anyone else.

As for the US, you talk as if it exists outside of history, outside of the affairs of mankind and never does anything out of self-interest. Where do you guys get off on your self-righteousness? It's nauseating sometimes. If the Japs hadn't attacked Pearl Harbour you guys would still be wringing your hands, and counting your profits: blood money from British Tommies.

[Divinus Arma]

Exactly what "inferior status"?

THIS INFERIOR STATUS-

Anti-Muslim actions in the Netherlands: (http://www.opendemocracy.net/faith-europe_islam/netherlands_3253.jsp)

Once again, the Netherlands surprises. Flying in the face of a centuries-old commitment to freedom of religion, of conscience, and of expression, it is about to prohibit Muslim women from covering their faces in public. Should this legislation pass, and apply to the whole of the public sphere as the Dutch parliament desires, it will constitute one of the most restrictive responses to Islamic clothing both in Europe and beyond.

Anti-Muslim actions in France: (http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=HAS20051108&articleId=1214)

The French called them Les cités. The ‘ghettos’ are specially built for excluded and disfranchised migrants from France’s former North African colonies - mostly Arabs and Muslims - and other parts of the world. Clustered on the peripheries of France’s big cities, Les cités proved to be laboratories for dissent and resistance against oppression. The children of the immigrants who built France after World War II are being pushed further outside the French society.

Anti-Muslim sentiment in Britain: (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4744865.stm)

'Two countries'
"I've been working with young Muslims and they're angry - really angry and nobody wants to talk about this," he says. "When you go up north and see the conditions, it's like two different countries - and they feel that."


Only if and when it is in your own self-interest to do so. (Which it won't be because we don't have much oil left)

It is so damn sad that you really think this. It really is. Can't I support Europe because we share common values in democracy and freedom? Why does it have to be about oil? Because Michael Moore told you?

[Red Peasant]

Lol!

Who ain't angry in this country!?

You'll have to do better than, "Ooh, my blood's really boiling about this Ethel/Ahmed. When you come 'oop north' it's like a totally different country, the Americans think we are all talk like Dick Van Dyke in Mary Poppins."

:laugh4:

[lars573]

It is so damn sad that you really think this. It really is. Can't I support Europe because we share common values in democracy and freedom? Why does it have to be about oil? Because Michael Moore told you?
It's true though. There was only one man in the US that wanted to fight militarism and fascism in 1939. That man was FDR. He had to manipulate the US into WW2. By forcing the Japanese to attack. You are as a people very self-rightoues. Not to mention patronizing. It's very tiring. :no:

Besides the world isn't ignoring or appeasing Islamofascists. They just aren't using military force against them, or any overt force at all. Unlike in the US european nations voting system is such that the votes of the Northafrican muslims in France, Turks in Germany, and Asian muslims in Britain matter a lot more than the urban islamic vote in the US. They all occupy what would be the lower end working class in those nations. If large numbers of working class jobs still existed in those nations. :dizzy2: They need time to integrate better. Time, the one thing that isn't in great supply.




How long before hispanic immagrents rebel against their infirior status in the US do you think?

[Divinus Arma]

How long before hispanic immagrents rebel against their infirior status in the US do you think?

Not long apparently.

https://img84.imageshack.us/img84/3923/laillegalalienprotestse1.jpg (https://imageshack.us)

The difference is that our "hispanic immigrants" came here in violation of the law. They broke into our country and after having done so, are demanding rights which they are not entitled to. They are not citizens, just as I am not a citizen of the U.K. and do not deserve the protection and benefit of U.K. citizenship.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

It's true though. There was only one man in the US that wanted to fight militarism and fascism in 1939. That man was FDR. He had to manipulate the US into WW2. By forcing the Japanese to attack. You are as a people very self-rightoues. Not to mention patronizing. It's very tiring. :no:


Actually, FDR was not focused on war with Japan. US public sentiment had been inflamed by Japanese actions in China as well as incidents such as the Panay sinking. FDR thought that the sanctions would limit Japanese efforts, and truly did not expect them to attempt to swallow the entire Western Pacific Rim into their empire. FDR's focus from 1938 on was to limit/counter/defeat Germany, who he viewed as the primary enemy. If you think FDR -- who had put the navy into the war in the Atlantic as early as the Spring of 1941 -- was secretly delighted when Hitler was dumb enough to follow Pearl Harbor with a DoW on the USA, you are probably correct. Otherwise, he would have been hard-pressed to continue to oppose Germany actively -- US sentiment would have demanded a Japan focus instead.

Self-righteous? Probably so. Patronizing? Sometimes. Given our successes we tend to think we have a lot to contribute. You are no doubt correct that many (most?) folks around the world would prefer that we just shut up and go home.


How long before hispanic immagrents rebel against their infirior status in the US do you think?

It'll be awhile, yet.:laugh4: Though there are those who have "reconquista" as their goal. To be fair with DA, however, he's been pretty clear that he likes his immigration legal and focused on assimilation - not takeover. He is also of the belief that the opportunities presented by the USA are such that almost anyone who is willing to work hard, obey the law, and get educated can make something of themselves -- opportunity tends to mitigate against revolt.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

The irony and hypocrisy of it all is simply too much to stand.

I think we'll see an assasination here. Then the world will really take a crap. I can't wait.

I can wait -- and pray that it will never happen.

I would not, however, envy the current working hours and worry factor of the commander of the Swiss Guard.

[Pannonian]

And eventually the United States, ever your ally, will bail you out of your self-inflicted predicament once again.
No you won't. When you "bailed us out", you made sure to strip us of all our assets to pay for that help, while the last time we had to fight a war for our territory you were mighty reluctant to offer even moral support. The United States looks out for itself, and will only help us if it suits your purpose. Which is fair enough, but don't pretend otherwise.

Look through the post-war experience for a catalogue of how the United States, ever our ally, was constantly undermining Britain in the colonies. Up until mid-1944 FDR viewed the British empire as the next greatest evil, to be dealt with once the Germans and Japanese were finished off. That remained US policy even after Stalin fell from his good books.

[Mooks]

The statement also said jihad was not terrorism and that "Islam was not propagated with the sword, but it became popular and was accepted by the oppressed peoples of the world because of its universal values and teachings."

"Jihad is waged to rid an area, state, or the world of oppression, violence, cruelty, and terrorism, and bring peace and relief to the people. History is full of incidents where Muslims waged jihad to provide relief to people of many faiths, especially Jews and Christians," it said.

Bwah...bwahahhaa. Seriosly, if christrians werent peace-loving. Islam wouldnt even make these comments.

[Samurai Waki]

Oh come off it Pannonian, every country is self serving. If the UK could get better trade deals from a different source they'd do it in a heart beat.

Every Country is playing the same game, and every country wants to be the top dog. When America is no longer numero uno, then everyone is going to start hating on China or wherever. The thing is, is that America still has a long ways to go before we get knocked off our pedestal, so deal with it.

And Yes, if the West Still had a very Zealous Christian Population, the middle east would be 3 large craters named New Kansas, Crater 17, and That Place that used to be Saudi Arabia.

[Mooks]

Oh come off it Pannonian, every country is self serving. If the UK could get better trade deals from a different source they'd do it in a heart beat.

Every Country is playing the same game, and every country wants to be the top dog. When America is no longer numero uno, then everyone is going to start hating on China or wherever. The thing is, is that America still has a long ways to go before we get knocked off our pedestal, so deal with it.

You deserve a medal.

[lars573]

Not long apparently.


The difference is that our "hispanic immigrants" came here in violation of the law. They broke into our country and after having done so, are demanding rights which they are not entitled to. They are not citizens, just as I am not a citizen of the U.K. and do not deserve the protection and benefit of U.K. citizenship.
And you'd be wrong. Many Asians in Britain and North Africans in France came illegally. But they been around long enough to claim citizenship. What call anchor babies aren't exactly unique to the US.



Actually, FDR was not focused on war with Japan. US public sentiment had been inflamed by Japanese actions in China as well as incidents such as the Panay sinking. FDR thought that the sanctions would limit Japanese efforts, and truly did not expect them to attempt to swallow the entire Western Pacific Rim into their empire. FDR's focus from 1938 on was to limit/counter/defeat Germany, who he viewed as the primary enemy. If you think FDR -- who had put the navy into the war in the Atlantic as early as the Spring of 1941 -- was secretly delighted when Hitler was dumb enough to follow Pearl Harbor with a DoW on the USA, you are probably correct. Otherwise, he would have been hard-pressed to continue to oppose Germany actively -- US sentiment would have demanded a Japan focus instead.
FDR was the king of political scheemers, he would have made Machiavelli proud. He loved it, he also loved being an elected leader too. I watch a documentary series about Churchhill, FDR and DeGaulle. You know FDR tried no less than 4 schemes (including luring a Vichy General in Algeria to the allied side) to keep DeGaulle from being the sole leader of the free French? Anyway he was involved in government long enough to know what the Japanese were about. He knew that cutting of their oil would push them to war with the US. Maybe not right away but eventually.



Self-righteous? Probably so. Patronizing? Sometimes. Given our successes we tend to think we have a lot to contribute. You are no doubt correct that many (most?) folks around the world would prefer that we just shut up and go home.
You do. Money, technology, good will even. But the patronizing, self rightouness that invariably comes with it is what the rest of us don't want. The British had the same problem when they were in the top spot. *shrug* Maybe it just comes with being a superpower.

[Pannonian]

Oh come off it Pannonian, every country is self serving. If the UK could get better trade deals from a different source they'd do it in a heart beat.

That's why I said it was fair enough. It's the self-justification and the talk of loyal allies always bailing us out that irritates me. We paid for that help, and the payment was deliberately framed to ensure we would never regain our status as a world power. Add the tech exchange programmes that you reneged on (Tube Alloys being the most prominent, though the other tech "exchanges" also only ever went westwards), and Britain does not owe America anything for WW2. Accept that you made us pay through the nose and some more for the aid, and stop telling us to be grateful for it.

It might tell you something that I actually respect and admire FDR for shafting us thus - he was doing the right thing in enrichening his own country and establishing the basis for its continued dominance in the next 60 years and more. If only we had the same calibre and ruthlessness of leaders.

[Pannonian]

FDR was the king of political scheemers, he would have made Machiavelli proud. He loved it, he also loved being an elected leader too. I watch a documentary series about Churchhill, FDR and DeGaulle. You know FDR tried no less than 4 schemes (including luring a Vichy General in Algeria to the allied side) to keep DeGaulle from being the sole leader of the free French?
Allies at War (http://imdb.com/title/tt0450206/)

Typically for FDR, when he was finally forced to accept De Gaulle as the leader of the Free French, he embraced him with greater public warmth than Churchill ever did, disguising in the public eye the many stilettos he had embedded in De Gaulle's back with this show of earnest friendship. FDR was definitely the outstanding politician of the 20th century.

[Samurai Waki]

Hehe. Well it wasn't like Churchill was a saint either. Granted, I do agree that the Allies really don't owe us anything, especially because it's been over sixty years since WWII, and nobody but the dwindling Veterans should have any right to say "we bailed you guys out" which none of them have. Its the current generation (especially Generation X) that invented the notion that "we bailed you guys out" mentality, most likely from stories of their parents or grandparents who fought in the war and the sacrifices they made, has for some reason, given them this self-righteous attitude. When in fact the Generation X'ers have given American Society Nothing but a looooooonnnnnnggggg list of problems that the future generations will have to solve. Okay, I take that back, the Generation X'ers gave us an excuse to be lazy.

I don't think, as the world globalizes a little more every day, that too many Young Americans believe we bailed you out. We're more used to the illusion that the US and Allies were all snug bed buddies from the beginning, and the US fought it's war to destroy Nazism, and since then we've been snug bed buddies, and thats the way its always going to be.

Plus England/British Empire/UK has a pretty decent list of ruthless leaders as well. Elizabeth and Victoria come to mind.

[lars573]

That's the one.

If you learn about FDR's personality he was fully capable of using Japan's need for oil to get the US into WW2. Not that I think less of him for forcing the Japanese into attacking Pearl harbour. His goal was to use WW2 to make the US the new primier world power, taking that spot from Britain without fighting them. In which he succeded. As in the game of kings (or presidents) the price is always paided in blood.

[InsaneApache]

nevermind

[InsaneApache]

doublepost

[Duke Malcolm]

Plus England/British Empire/UK has a pretty decent list of ruthless leaders as well. Elizabeth and Victoria come to mind.

Victoria? The Queen-Empress was barely a leader, nevermind a ruthless one.

And as for that bit about:


Anti-Muslim sentiment in Britain

'Two countries'
"I've been working with young Muslims and they're angry - really angry and nobody wants to talk about this," he says. "When you go up north and see the conditions, it's like two different countries - and they feel that."
Poor Muslims have just as bad conditions as poor non-Muslims. Rich Muslims have the same conditions as rich non-Muslims. The reason that it might be like two different countries is that Muslims tend to gather together, so they have bad living conditions together. The chap in the article goes into these places because that is his job.
There is more talk amongst muslims in those areas about anti-muslim sentiment than there is in areas where that does not happen.

[rory_20_uk]

Victoria was a recluse after her anal retentive / borderline insane husband died. She then went into mourning for a few decades, ignoring her family as well as the country. In her lifetime she did vast damage to the influence and the perception of the royal family.

I imagine that poor muslims want what the poor mon muslims want in the UK: jobs that are cushy, well paid and require no training. That these don't exist is a prime example that they are oppressed, of course due to their religion, not that they are poorly trained.

Elizabeth was a master stateswoman. A protestant country surrounded by Catholics with enemies inside at all levels. To survive she had to move with the speed of a centipede on a hot tin plate, and ruthlessly remove threats as they emerged.

She was one of the early architects of the British Empire (I realise Britain didn't exist at the time) by basically stealing monies from Spain.

Kings and Queens that gained power generally didn't do so by rescuing orphaned kittens and winning flower arranging contests.

Catherine the Great
Peter The Great
Ivan the Terrible
Edward I (Hammer of the Scots)
Cromwell
Etc etc.

Depending on the time leaders were either violent killers themselves or employed others to do it for them.

~:smoking:

[macsen rufus]

Kings and Queens that gained power generally didn't do so by rescuing orphaned kittens and winning flower arranging contests.

Catherine the Great
Peter The Great
Ivan the Terrible
Edward I (Hammer of the Scots)
Cromwell
Etc etc.

Depending on the time leaders were either violent killers themselves or employed others to do it for them.


Which brings us back to the conquests that established the first Caliphate, maybe???

(Sorry, I'd forgotten the thread title by now :laugh4: )

[lars573]

Thing is the Qu'ran forbids forced conversions. It states that they are invalid. Only very strong persuation is allowed (although holding a sword to the guys neck is about the strongest persuation around :idea2: ). Where as Christianity has no such restraints present in the bible. Remember that Charlemagne conquered and forcibly christianized the continental Saxons.

[yesdachi]

Thing is the Qu'ran forbids forced conversions.
Tell that to the Extremists who have hijacked the religion.

[caravel]

Whatever the case these Pakistani(?) clerics (link to source would be good, as there isn't one or I've somehow missed it) don't have any right to demand the replacement of the Pope, a religious leader and Sovereign of the State of the Vatican City, of which they have no connection with.

I'm quite sure that if Christians demonstrated in the streets of a European city regarding the deposition of on of their religious clerics/mullahs, or one of their political leaders they would tell them to mind their own business and call it "western interference", putting it mildly.

[lars573]

I doubt I could actually tell them anything.

[King Henry V]

Thing is the Qu'ran forbids forced conversions. It states that they are invalid. Only very strong persuation is allowed (although holding a sword to the guys neck is about the strongest persuation around :idea2: ). Where as Christianity has no such restraints present in the bible. Remember that Charlemagne conquered and forcibly christianized the continental Saxons.
However, is it not also true that Islam's goal is to submit all the countries to that religion. The conquered peoples will follow suit in due time.
If that wasn't the case, why did the Muslims act as they did immediately after the death of Mohammed?

[Duke of Gloucester]

@DA

I can't really comment about Holland or France, but Moslems in Britain up North is something I do know about. Most Moslems I meet in Bradford are not angry and alienated. There is poverty here and in other cities (some of which are not in the North) and this can lead to alienation, but that is not the same as "inferior status". In fact the article you quote is not about British attitudes to Moslems but Moslems' attitudes to British society. It is quite thought-provoking in that it presents a paradox. Islam has helped Dawood Gustave to integrate, but it is a barrier to integration for young Asian men. Also if you read what he says, he thinks it is about being "other" rather than being "Moslem". He says: "I don't see the way Muslims are treated as any different to how the Jewish and the Irish were treated before them." In Britain, Moslems do not have "inferior status"

As regards America acting in self-interest, I have no problem with this. In fact leaders ought not to get involved in wars unless it furthers the interests of their own countries. Warriors sign up to risk life and limb for their country, not someone elses. What is sickening is when Americans pretend to themselves and others that they intervened in European wars to help the Europeans. This does not mean I am not grateful for the courage and sacrifice shown by American soldiers: they deserve honour for what they did. However the truth is that they were fighting for America and only fought alongside the British because their interests co-incided. They fought well and we benefited, but don't kid yourself who they were fighting for. Besides, if I was going to single out a country to pour gratitude upon for fighting the Nazis, it would have to be Soviet Russia, wouldn't it?

[yesdachi]

(link to source would be good, as there isn't one or I've somehow missed it).
link (http://www.comcast.net/news/international/asia/index.jsp?cat=ASIA&fn=/2006/09/21/482122.html)

[sharrukin]

Thing is the Qu'ran forbids forced conversions. It states that they are invalid. Only very strong persuation is allowed (although holding a sword to the guys neck is about the strongest persuation around :idea2: ). Where as Christianity has no such restraints present in the bible. Remember that Charlemagne conquered and forcibly christianized the continental Saxons.

The Quran does not forbid forced conversions.

Sura 2:256 as well as Sura 109:6 are misleading when presented to those who have not read the Quran

According to the doctrine of abrogation (as per Sura 2:106), which is accepted among the majority of Islamic scholars, verses that were revealed later in sequence abrogate earlier revealed ones where an apparent contradiction arises in the meanings of the respective verses.

Sura 9 is often regarded as the last or second last revealed out of 114 Suras and the the principle of abrogation means that these later verses render invalid earlier verses.
Sura's 2:256, 109:6 are abrogated by the verses from later Sura's, for example 9:5, and many others in sura 9, as well as sura 8.

To say that Muslims should not try to compel people to become believers, is inconsistent with most of the Koran.

[Xiahou]

link (http://www.comcast.net/news/international/asia/index.jsp?cat=ASIA&fn=/2006/09/21/482122.html)

"Jihad is waged to rid an area, state, or the world of oppression, violence, cruelty, and terrorism, and bring peace and relief to the people. History is full of incidents where Muslims waged jihad to provide relief to people of many faiths, especially Jews and Christians," it said.Hmm, in that case I'd say the Middle East could use a big heaping helping of that jihad right about now- they've got plenty of violence, cruelty, and terrorism. Btw, anyone know any examples of jihads being waged to help Christians and Jews?

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Btw, anyone know any examples of jihads being waged to help Christians and Jews?


Dont you realise that all Jihads are for the good of everyone?


"Jihad is waged to rid an area, state, or the world of oppression, violence, cruelty, and terrorism, and bring peace and relief to the people.
So for instance the invasion of Spain was for the good of the christians living there .

[Xiahou]

In related news...
An apparently lucrative cash-for-fatwa (http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1537516,00.html) scandal has been exposed in India...
Last week, many Muslims in India, like their counterparts around the world, gathered on the streets to burn effigies of the Pope and shout slogans denouncing him for his remarks on Islam and violence. Even before that fully died out, however, a new controversy erupted — one that has turned Muslim ire against some of their own local clerics.

India's "cash-for-fatwas" scandal broke out last weekend when a TV channel broadcast a sting operation that showed several Indian Muslim clerics allegedly taking, or demanding, bribes in return for issuing fatwas, or religious edicts. The bribes, some of which were as low as $60, were offered by undercover reporters wearing hidden cameras over a period of six weeks. In return for the cash, the clerics appear to hand out fatwas written in Urdu, the language used by many Muslims in Pakistan and India, on subjects requested by the reporters. Among the decrees issued by the fatwas: that Muslims are not allowed to use credit cards, double beds, or camera-equipped cell phones, and should not act in films, donate their organs, or teach their children English. One cleric issued a fatwa against watching TV; another issued a fatwa in support of watching TV.

Adding to the shock in India, home to the world's third-largest Muslim population (approximately 150 million), is that some of the clerics apparently caught in the sting operation teach at important institutions — one belongs to India's most famous Islamic seminary, the Darul Uloom at Deoband. At least two of the clerics have been suspended from their posts, but that hasn't satisfied everyone. Students at one madrassa in north India denounced the clerics, and in the city of Meerut, where a mufti, or cleric, had been caught on camera, the congregation at one mosque refused to offer prayers until he came before them, admitted to taking the money, and apologized. Anyone want to take bets on whether or not India's the only place where this happens?

[Scurvy]

hmmm, maybe if i offer enough i could get one to issue a fatwa fobidding work :2thumbsup:

[Banquo's Ghost]

In related news...
An apparently lucrative cash-for-fatwa (http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1537516,00.html) scandal has been exposed in India...Anyone want to take bets on whether or not India's the only place where this happens?

Hey, Xiahou, that is all the Pope's fault as well.

After all, we invented the idea of selling sacred stuff for cash. :wink3:

[Randarkmaan]

Which brings us back to the conquests that established the first Caliphate, maybe???


There was not really much forced conversions during the Arab conquests, because when the conquests started most Arabs viewed Islam as the religion of the Arabs and thus the religion of the (to be) social and military elite, in the beginning there was even some rulers who tried to discourage conversion among non-arabs, and in the case where people did convert they did not lift the extra tax that was to be paid by other 'peoples of the book'.
Also many of the Christians in the middle-east and North Africa were really not all that unhappy about having the Arabs rule them instead of the Byzantiens who had persecuted many middle-eastern christians because they were monophysites unlike the Byzantines.


Where as Christianity has no such restraints present in the bible. Remember that Charlemagne conquered and forcibly christianized the continental Saxons.

True, the Teutonic knights should also be mentioned in this respect, heck those guys even managed to nearly make certain launguages extinct.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Hey, Xiahou, that is all the Pope's fault as well.

After all, we invented the idea of selling sacred stuff for cash. :wink3:

Oh paleese! The priests of upper and lower Kemet had it down to a science 2 millenia before the Romans made it Aegyptus. I wouldn't be surprised if information came to light that Gilgamesh was into the same gig too.

By the way, I have a spare indulgence if you want one....:laugh4:

[kataphraktoi]

Where as Christianity has no such restraints present in the bible. Remember that Charlemagne conquered and forcibly christianized the continental Saxons.

Christianity states no restraints in the Bible? Read the Bible? "Love thy neighbour?"

Gee, I suppose Charlemagne was a role model Christian who read the Bible and followed its command to "love one another".

Isn't "love one another" a restraint in itself....or perhaps in Greek "love" means "holy war exterminate the infidel"....:laugh4:

For me the most interesting unknown episodes of the early Arab Caliphate is recapture of Alexandria by the Byzantine general Manuel (not the Emperor) a few years after the first Arab capture of Alexandria. The Alexandrians welcomed back the Byzantines (yes, the same oppressive ones) because it seems the toleration and taxation of the Arabs weren't as "advertised" before. But stupid Manuel wasted his initial popularity and made no effort to expel the Arabs....eventually he was kicked out of Egypt....deservedly.

A century later, Egyptian (Coptic or Miaphysite - same as Monophysite) Christians in the Arab fleet sent to reinforce the Arab siege of Constantinople deserted to the Byzantine Emperor Leo in 718.

IN the 9th century, there were two Coptic rebellions on a large scale in Egypt against oppresive taxation. According to a Muslim I've chatted to, Muslims also participated in showing their discontent against oppressive taxation. This means that oppressive taxation wasn't just a "Byzantine" thing, but a trait that existed in Muslim and Christian states as well. And, it also indicates that the dichotomous assumption that Byzantine = high taxation compared to other states needs more thought

Funnily enough, the Monophysites in the Caliphates took an active interest in the affairs of the Roman empire despite their bitter relationship with the Byzantines (more specifically, with the Chalcedonian clergy, rather than the Emperor himself). The recorded growth of church-building and monastic activity by the Monophysites in the 10th and 11th century in the Middle East was under Byzantine rule in regions around Antioch and Melitene where they recently reconquered old territories. Catherine Holme's essay "How the East was won" has a nice exposition on this. Can find it deremilitari.org :2thumbsup:

Rant over. :laugh4:

[Randarkmaan]

I won't contine arguing in defence or against the Caliphate or the Byzantines.
But, how come everytime the Caliphate or Arab Conquest or even Islam is mentioned all people do is complain that they were so... "evil". They were just humans, as were the Byzantines(who were not exactly saints), the Franks and the Crusaders.

[Pannonian]

Hmm, in that case I'd say the Middle East could use a big heaping helping of that jihad right about now- they've got plenty of violence, cruelty, and terrorism. Btw, anyone know any examples of jihads being waged to help Christians and Jews?
The Muslims took Jerusalem from the Persians with the aid of the Jews, according to the Jewish Virtual Library. AFAIK the Jews and even some Christians preferred the Muslims to the Crusaders, as Muslim rule (if not interrupted by wars with the Crusaders) was more settled and left the different communities in peace. In due course existing Crusaders followed the Muslim example and settled down to rule their new kingdoms, the ceasefires only ending when a new batch of zealots arrived on the latest Crusade. And IIRC the Muslims were invited into Andalusia by its inhabitants, as the region had stagnated since the collapse of Roman rule, and Muslim administration seemed to offer revitalisation (as it eventually did).

Those are some of the examples of indigenous peoples inviting the Muslims to rule over them, and over a number of generations many of them converted to Islam of their own accord. Funnily enough, the above are also often cited as examples of the Muslims conquering said indigenous peoples in the name of Islam and converting them by force.

[Red Peasant]

The Muslims took Jerusalem from the Persians with the aid of the Jews, according to the Jewish Virtual Library.

I think you'll find that the Arabs took the city from the Byzantines, with Jewish help. It was the sensible thing to do. After all, why resist and incur the wrath of a conquering, acendant power when you have no loyalty to the previous, repressive regime? May as well try a new one. The Byzantines had retaken the city from the Persians about a decade earlier. The Jews had also welcomed the Persians and the Byzantine response had been harsh once they regained control of the city and the surrounding territory.

[lars573]

Christianity states no restraints in the Bible? Read the Bible? "Love thy neighbour?"

Gee, I suppose Charlemagne was a role model Christian who read the Bible and followed its command to "love one another".

Isn't "love one another" a restraint in itself....or perhaps in Greek "love" means "holy war exterminate the infidel"....:laugh4:
All that only counts if the neighbours happen to be Christians. If they aren't welll.... *sharpens axe* Then they must be shown the light, even if said light is only shown them while glinting off my axe head. :viking:



To say that Muslims should not try to compel people to become believers, is inconsistent with most of the Koran.
The way it was portraited to me is that strong persuation. IE preaching or example is fine. Holding a guy down putting a sword to his neck and saying "Convert or die" isn't fine.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

All that only counts if the neighbours happen to be Christians. If they aren't welll.... *sharpens axe* Then they must be shown the light, even if said light is only shown them while glinting off my axe head.

Wow, that may be the most open goal in Backroom history.

Jesus was asked this very question, "Who is my neighbour?" his response, famously, was to tell the parable of the Good Samaritan.

His point being that all people are your neighbours. Forced conversion is implicitly, not explicitly, condemed by the Gospels and by Jesus own example.

[Dâriûsh]

I've read that Qaradawi's Day of Rage failed.

Which begs the question: what if you were to host a Day of Rage and no one turned up?

TV stars and politics... :no:

[Leet Eriksson]

I've read that Qaradawi's Day of Rage failed.

Which begs the question: what if you were to host a Day of Rage and no one turned up?

TV stars and politics... :no:

Now that i look at it, there was hardly any protests, the Media just blew the entire protests thing, there are about a billion muslims, and how many protesters in each country? Iran turned about 500 at best in tehran ~;p

[Dâriûsh]

Now that i look at it, there was hardly any protests, the Media just blew the entire protests thing, there are about a billion muslims, and how many protesters in each country? Iran turned about 500 at best in tehran ~;p Ahaha! And I'll bet Ahmadinejad's donkey they were all a bunch of bored Basij. Just like always... ~:rolleyes: :laugh4:

[Mooks]

Whatever the case these Pakistani(?) clerics (link to source would be good, as there isn't one or I've somehow missed it) don't have any right to demand the replacement of the Pope, a religious leader and Sovereign of the State of the Vatican City, of which they have no connection with.

I'm quite sure that if Christians demonstrated in the streets of a European city regarding the deposition of on of their religious clerics/mullahs, or one of their political leaders they would tell them to mind their own business and call it "western interference", putting it mildly.

They do it because, they think they are important in religous affairs in the world and that people want to hear their opinions.

[lars573]

Wow, that may be the most open goal in Backroom history.

Jesus was asked this very question, "Who is my neighbour?" his response, famously, was to tell the parable of the Good Samaritan.

His point being that all people are your neighbours. Forced conversion is implicitly, not explicitly, condemed by the Gospels and by Jesus own example.
Gospel was revised several times to make it work better. And the day to day operations of how to practice Christian principles was up to the chruch men. They interpreted how it went. There fore my analogy is perfectly correct, for the first 1000 years of the religions existance (300CE-1600CE).

[Mooks]

Gospel was revised several times to make it work better. And the day to day operations of how to practice Christian principles was up to the chruch men. They interpreted how it went. There fore my analogy is perfectly correct, for the first 1000 years of the religions existance (300CE-1600CE).

Are you saying the original books of the bible were edited? Im really skeptical about this...

[Vladimir]

Opk.

[Randarkmaan]

Are you saying the original books of the bible were edited? Im really skeptical about this...

I don't think they edited it, I just think they chose what to and what not to include.

[Duke of Gloucester]

The books themselves were not edited, although they may not have always been copied or translated faithfully. Decisions were made about which books should be in the canon and which should not. Had the gospels been systematcially edited we might expect them to be more consistent with each other.

As for the old testament, try reading the account of the flood from Genesis (Gen 6:5 to 8:22). It is clearly taken from different sources (possibly 4) and is not even self-consistent. Compare 7:2 with 7:8 and 7:15. How many pairs of clean animals were taken on board? Look at 7:17 and 8:4. How long did the flood last? If the actual texts were purposely edited to make them "work better", we might expect a better job to have been done.

[kataphraktoi]

The books themselves were not edited, although they may not have always been copied or translated faithfully. Decisions were made about which books should be in the canon and which should not. Had the gospels been systematcially edited we might expect them to be more consistent with each other.

As for the old testament, try reading the account of the flood from Genesis (Gen 6:5 to 8:22). It is clearly taken from different sources (possibly 4) and is not even self-consistent. Compare 7:2 with 7:8 and 7:15. How many pairs of clean animals were taken on board? Look at 7:17 and 8:4. How long did the flood last? If the actual texts were purposely edited to make them "work better", we might expect a better job to have been done.

The Bible is not meant to be a history book like the textbooks u find a uni. Its a book of faith, not of science. And yet, it has been a boon to archaeologists who once thought cities mentioned in the Bible did not exist...like Ur.

I agree, the Gospels we have now is a product of what is included and excluded. The ones that were included have a pretty much compliment each other theologically. Obviously, those excluded don't...Its funny cos there are some groups out there trying to have theological debates with Christians by using the book of Barnabas even though it is not recognised by most Christians today.

[Tribesman]

I don't think they edited it, I just think they chose what to and what not to include.

Choosing what to include and what to not include is editing :oops:

[rory_20_uk]

I agree, the Gospels we have now is a product of what is included and excluded. The ones that were included have a pretty much compliment each other theologically. Obviously, those excluded don't...Its funny cos there are some groups out there trying to have theological debates with Christians by using the book of Barnabas even though it is not recognised by most Christians today.

Merely that the Christians don't recognise a theological book only shows how narrow minded they are. If it were a Christian debate, then they can concentrate all the inconsistencies present today.

~:smoking:

[Duke of Gloucester]

Choosing what to include and what to not include is editing

No one (on this thread) is claiming the bible was not edited. The discussion was about whether individual books were edited "to make them work better".


The Bible is not meant to be a history book like the textbooks u find a uni. Its a book of faith, not of science. And yet, it has been a boon to archaeologists who once thought cities mentioned in the Bible did not exist...like Ur.

Exactly, and the lack of internal consistency within, for example, the story of the flood shows that the authors may have had the same view.


Merely that the Christians don't recognise a theological book only shows how narrow minded they are. If it were a Christian debate, then they can concentrate all the inconsistencies present today.

You are not being reasonable here, Rory. By recognise we mean "recognise as canonical" rather than accept that these books exist. Acceptance of books as canonical is not a measure of open-mindedness, otherwise Catholics are more open-minded than Protestants and Mormon's are the most open-minded of all. You can't expect Christians to allow any book about religion to be in the bible or we would have to have the "Da Vinci Code" in there as well. I am not saying that there are no examples of Christians having closed minds, just that this is not one of them.

[rory_20_uk]

Apologies, I misunderstood that the issue was not the historic accuracy of the works, but the fact that they are not canonical.

I would still say that a theological debate should not be based on what one person views as admissable. A debate requires two points of view. Rarely works are made canonical by Churches, and the first step to accepting is discussing their validity.

Some versions of the bible are edited. Jehova's witnesses believe that Jesus was not hung on a cross for example, and their "translation" reflects this.

As we do not have access to the origional texts, we can not dismiss the possibility that there was editing of the work. A low level priest would not admit this, nor would a senoir figure who has decided to do so.

The fact that the Bible contradicts itself, differs widely between the old and the new testament, has had books removed and added over the years does not mean that many have thought )and still do think) that the Bible is the literal word of God. Thousands have been killed for saying otherwise.

~:smoking:

[lars573]

Are you saying the original books of the bible were edited? Im really skeptical about this...
Yes on several levels. When they (the old and new testaments) were translated from Aramaic to Greek they were edited. Not to include or exclude passages but to make the books "work" in the Greek language. When the latin translation was finished in the 300's it was full of innaccurate translations. Then 13 or the 39 books in the new testament were removed and the 13 left were made the official book of Christ.

[Mooks]

I want someone to read the Aramaic books and then the latin (Or any other translations) and tell us how big the translation problem is. Probaly been done..just havent seen a blog or something describing it.

Hope that makes sense.

btw wouldnt the first books of the bibles be in Hebrew?

[Tribesman]

No one (on this thread) is claiming the bible was not edited
Duke .....I don't think they edited it, I just think they chose what to and what not to include....can you see why that statement got the reply it did ?.......
Choosing what to include and what to not include is editing

Sooooooo....... "I don't think they edited it , I think they just chose to edit it " :no: :oops:

[Duke of Gloucester]

All depends what you mean by "it", although if you are talking about books, "them" is a better pronoun.

[lars573]

I want someone to read the Aramaic books and then the latin (Or any other translations) and tell us how big the translation problem is. Probaly been done..just havent seen a blog or something describing it.

Hope that makes sense.

btw wouldnt the first books of the bibles be in Hebrew?
Yes and No. The Torah (or old testament) would have been written in Hebrew, but copies would be in Aramaic. The spoken language of Judea after kicking out the Seleucids and Roman rules was Aramaic (it's still not uncommon in Palestine). It's what Jesus (if he existed) spoke in day to day life. Honest to Yaweh Hebrew was a language of the priests of Solomons temple. In fact some groups of Jews consider pure Hebrew sacred and only to be spoken by the priestly tribe of Israel. They speak yiddish.

[Randarkmaan]

Okay, call that editing, but that's not what I meant, I considered "editing" in this case was to change the material not just selecting what should be included, I call that selecting not editing.


In fact some groups of Jews consider pure Hebrew sacred and only to be spoken by the priestly tribe of Israel. They speak yiddish.

Don't some groups of those jews also oppose the existence of Israel on the grounds that Israel shall not exist again before the end times or something like that?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

No one (on this thread) is claiming the bible was not edited
Duke .....I don't think they edited it, I just think they chose what to and what not to include....can you see why that statement got the reply it did ?.......

Sooooooo....... "I don't think they edited it , I think they just chose to edit it " :no: :oops:

This is a semantic point and utterly superfluous.

In fact we do have evidence that parts of the Bible were individually edited. Specifically, the resurection of Lazarus was originally contained in the gospel of Mark, but was removed because some heratics saw homosexual references in it. In fact there aren't any, but it was removed anyway, and this was before the formation of Bible.

The Bible is a late invention which is only authorative if you follow the Nicean Creed.

Not all those who call themselves Christians do.

[KukriKhan]

I want someone to read the Aramaic books and then the latin (Or any other translations) and tell us how big the translation problem is. Probaly been done..just havent seen a blog or something describing it.

You might be interested in the work the Jehova's Witnesses have done in building a concordance to the several versions/editions of the bible. Sadly, there's not a lot of info on the 'net about it, but your local library would probably have some of their work. They go back to original sources as much as possible, trying to re-translate more accurately.

Lots of folks dislike the Witnesses for their "knock-on-the-door" prostelytizing, but their research efforts are nothing to sneeze at.

[rory_20_uk]

I thought they were great. A few quotes such as "the last shall be first and the first last" showed them that I'd rather keep on sinning for many years, thank you. The lost sheep is the most important. So if they could keep me a place at the front of the que, I'll be right over. Just need to sin a bit more... :devil:

~:smoking:

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

You might be interested in the work the Jehova's Witnesses have done in building a concordance to the several versions/editions of the bible. Sadly, there's not a lot of info on the 'net about it, but your local library would probably have some of their work. They go back to original sources as much as possible, trying to re-translate more accurately.

Lots of folks dislike the Witnesses for their "knock-on-the-door" prostelytizing, but their research efforts are nothing to sneeze at.

There have been several attempts at direct, accurate translation. The traditional Catholic Bible (forgot the name of the text) is actually largely defunct.

It's just no one tells the masses.

[Mooks]

Gah, I hate to consider myself "The masses".

Im upper middle class damnit!!

:laugh4:

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Ah, but are you part of the intellectual elite? Anyway, I remembered to tell you, didn't I?

[Mooks]

Umm...Intellictual elite. :book:

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I'm Dyslexic. I spell phonetically. Ridicule me and I shall sue you under the dissabilities discrimination Act!

:laugh4:

[kataphraktoi]

You might be interested in the work the Jehova's Witnesses have done in building a concordance to the several versions/editions of the bible. Sadly, there's not a lot of info on the 'net about it, but your local library would probably have some of their work. They go back to original sources as much as possible, trying to re-translate more accurately.

Lots of folks dislike the Witnesses for their "knock-on-the-door" prostelytizing, but their research efforts are nothing to sneeze at.\\

Raymond V Franz, a former high ranking JW admitted the deliberate bending of "translations" from Greek, Latin and Aramaic to support their own beliefs. A secular non partisan Greek (New Testament language) scholar could easily point out the poor translative work of the Watchtower crew. How is it that they are the only "Christian" denomination that has a Bible translation which is textually and contextually different from all the other Christian sects?

Catholics and Protestants may use different Bibles, but the meanings of the scriptures are essentiallly the same, but the New World Translation of the JWs changes the meanings of the scriptures.

A famous example is John 1:1

The "Orthodox" version

"IN the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God"

The New World Translation:

"IN the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god"

See how the meaning is different? So either, the majority of Christians translations are wrong (yet the Greek translation can be verified by Greek scholars of no particular religious background) or the JWs are wrong and have deliberately twisted the Greek to suit their own purposes. :wall:



The Bible is a late invention which is only authorative if you follow the Nicean Creed.

Do u mean the individual books of the Bible or the canonical composition of the Bible?

If either...how late?

Early manuscripts of Mathew have been found within a century of the existence of the historical figure of Jesus. While this manuscript is clearly not an autograph, its contents compared to other later copies of Mathew indicates a serious and unbroken textual integrity in the transmission of the Gospels.

[rory_20_uk]

Yet others are far later, and indeed later than many works that were ommitted.

~:smoking:

[Leet Eriksson]

The Quran does not forbid forced conversions.

Sura 2:256 as well as Sura 109:6 are misleading when presented to those who have not read the Quran

According to the doctrine of abrogation (as per Sura 2:106), which is accepted among the majority of Islamic scholars, verses that were revealed later in sequence abrogate earlier revealed ones where an apparent contradiction arises in the meanings of the respective verses.

Sura 9 is often regarded as the last or second last revealed out of 114 Suras and the the principle of abrogation means that these later verses render invalid earlier verses.
Sura's 2:256, 109:6 are abrogated by the verses from later Sura's, for example 9:5, and many others in sura 9, as well as sura 8.

To say that Muslims should not try to compel people to become believers, is inconsistent with most of the Koran.

~;p

http://www.masjidtucson.org/quran/chapters_chronological_sequence.html

First of all you make the mistake of thinking that Surah 9 is the last revealed surah, when in reality its 21 (surah 20 is second last) and for the record even surah 9 does not imply forced conversions:

Chapter 9, verse 4] Except those of the Mushrikûn (See V.2:105) with whom you have a treaty, and who have not subsequently failed you in aught, nor have supported anyone against you. So fulfill their treaty to them for the end of their term. Surely Allâh loves Al-Mattaqûn (the pious - See V.2:2).

[Chapter 9, verse 5] Then when the Sacred Months (the 1st, 7th, 11th, and 12th months of the Islâmic calendar) have passed, then kill the Mushrikûn (See V.2:105) wherever you find them, and capture them and besiege them, and lie in wait for them in each and every ambush. But if they repent and perform As-Salât (Iqâmat-as-Salât), and give Zakât, then leave their way free. Verily, Allâh is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.

you see that the direct above verse before the 5th verse constitute respecting treaties with non-Muslims. So verse 5 talks really about when there is war with non-Muslims. It says, after the holy months passes, fight them again and resume the war that you were already fighting before the holy months.
Now, do they get to keep their religion when they lose? or they must convert? that verse is not so clear about it. In fact, under Ibn Katheer interpretation it says:
ثُمَّ اِخْتَلَفَ الْمُفَسِّرُونَ فِي آيَة السَّيْف هَذِهِ فَقَالَ الضَّحَّاك وَالسُّدِّيّ هِيَ مَنْسُوخَة بِقَوْلِهِ تَعَالَى " فَإِمَّا مَنًّا بَعْد وَإِمَّا فَدَاء " وَقَالَ قَتَادَة بِالْعَكْسِ .
in English it says: Then, the interpreters have disagreed on this verse of the sword (the 5th verse of Chapter 9). Al Dahak and Saddi said it is abrogated by the verse of "Thereafter (is the time) either for generosity (i.e. free them without ransom), or ransom (according to what benefits Islâm), until the war lays down its burden " Chapter 47,verse 4. Qatadah said the opposite.

On another note, make sure to include the entire Aya/Ayet, individual surahs don't convey the proper meaning.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

kataphraktoi, the new world translation isn't that reliable. But there are several obvious boobs in the New Testemant.

For example, Jesus almost certainly wasn't born in Nazareth because the place doesn't appear to exist before the rebellion on 69 AD. However, many early texts refer to him being a "Nazarine" a particular Jewish sect. He would therefore be "Jesus the Nazarine."

Then there's the whole Inn and stable thing, when the original Greek refers to "lower" and "upper" rooms. Terms which can still be applied to traditional Palastinian Houses, as they have two levels, with the animals on the lower one.

The editing of what went in and what didn't is far more important than a slightly flawed translation. Why are there only four Gospels. What about the Gospels of Peter and Thomas, the rumoured Gospel of the Magdaline?

These are the questions which cause me to doubt Orthodox Christianity.

[sharrukin]

~;p

http://www.masjidtucson.org/quran/chapters_chronological_sequence.html

First of all you make the mistake of thinking that Surah 9 is the last revealed surah, when in reality its 21 (surah 20 is second last) and for the record even surah 9 does not imply forced conversions:

Apparently the Muslims don't agree with you regarding Sura 20 being the last!

In fact, even the website you have posted doesn't agree with you!
http://www.masjidtucson.org/quran/appendices/proclamation.html

According to the website you are utilizing Sura 9 was in fact the last Sura, or the second to last. Others also say it was the second to last. Whichever it was is beside the point as the principle of abrogation would remains the same in either case.

"During the re-arrangement process, the scribes who idolized the Prophet added two verses at the end of Sura 9, the last sura revealed in Medina."



http://www.masjidtucson.org/quran/chapters_chronological_sequence.html


If you will look in the left column Sura/Chapter and then go down to Sura 9. Look over into the right hand column and you will see a number. The number is 113. There are 114 Sura/chapters in the Quran. So no, Sura 9 according to the exact link you posted is not the last chapter, it is the second to last chapter in the Quran.

This is your link, not mine, but it proves my point, and I thank you for it!

You might also note that Sura 2 (the love and cuddles quote) is listed as 87th, Sura 109 is 18th, Sura 20 is listed as 45th, and Sura 21 is 73rd.


http://www.islamia.com/surah_009.htm

Regarding Sura 9;

"Logically this Surah follows up the argument of the last Surah (8)"





Chapter 9, verse 4] Except those of the Mushrikûn (See V.2:105) with whom you have a treaty, and who have not subsequently failed you in aught, nor have supported anyone against you. So fulfill their treaty to them for the end of their term. Surely Allâh loves Al-Mattaqûn (the pious - See V.2:2).

[Chapter 9, verse 5] Then when the Sacred Months (the 1st, 7th, 11th, and 12th months of the Islâmic calendar) have passed, then kill the Mushrikûn (See V.2:105) wherever you find them, and capture them and besiege them, and lie in wait for them in each and every ambush. But if they repent and perform As-Salât (Iqâmat-as-Salât), and give Zakât, then leave their way free. Verily, Allâh is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.

you see that the direct above verse before the 5th verse constitute respecting treaties with non-Muslims. So verse 5 talks really about when there is war with non-Muslims. It says, after the holy months passes, fight them again and resume the war that you were already fighting before the holy months.

Now, do they get to keep their religion when they lose? or they must convert? that verse is not so clear about it.


The verse is absolutely crystal clear!

"if they repent and perform As-Salât"

http://i-cias.com/e.o/salat.htm

This IS forced conversion!

"if they repent and perform As-Salât (Iqâmat-as-Salât), and give Zakât"

http://www.islamicity.com/mosque/Zakat/

"Zakat is the amount of money that every adult, mentally stable, free, and financially able Muslim, male and female, has to pay to support specific categories people."

This means they ARE MUSLIMS.

Forced conversion!

They must make the Muslim prayer and make the payment THAT ONLY MUSLIMS MUST PAY, or they get their heads cut off. What is your definition of force? It is clear they are being made Muslims and that force is being used. How much more clear does it have to be?



in English it says: Then, the interpreters have disagreed on this verse of the sword (the 5th verse of Chapter 9). Al Dahak and Saddi said it is abrogated by the verse of "Thereafter (is the time) either for generosity (i.e. free them without ransom), or ransom (according to what benefits Islâm), until the war lays down its burden " Chapter 47,verse 4. Qatadah said the opposite.

First Sura 47 (the quote being from Sura 47:4) is according to your link 95th, so it would be abrogated by Sura 9 (113th) in any case, if there is any conflict.

Second, there is no conflict with verse 9:5, as well as other verses, saying much the same thing.

[ezrider]

How many hours could the Backroom go without talking about muslims or jihad?

Seriously, its an obsession.

We should all just bury our heads in the sand and forget.
or just go for Sensitivity training (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h-Hc11RGzig)

[Mooks]

The more I read about Islam and the actions of muslims. The more the religion starts to disqust me.

[drone]

How many hours could the Backroom go without talking about muslims or jihad?
If you want a break from it, just start up an abortion or gun thread. That will divert attention for a while. :idea2:

[ezrider]

The more I read about Islam and the actions of muslims. The more the religion starts to disqust me.

Thats the problem right there.

If you read enough bad press about one religion and the actions of its devotees then, especially in the hyped and loaded atmosphere of partisan 24hr news media, then you will definitely start to have bad feelings about it.

Think of all the shitty things Christians have done throughout time; all the messed up Catholic/Puritant dogma that has subjugated Women/Homosexuals/Ethnic minorities/Freedom of Sexual Expression(I went to a Catholic school) /"Savage" cultures, is responsible for burning people alive, stifled the creativity of some of the worlds greatest minds, halting the progress of Mankind, lying, cheating, stealing, raping and extermination.
and are opposed to guns and abortion

now tell me that Islam disgusts you..... it makes me wanna wretch

I think a dose of perspective is in order

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Thats the problem right there.

If you read enough bad press about one religion and the actions of its devotees then, especially in the hyped and loaded atmosphere of partisan 24hr news media, then you will definitely start to have bad feelings about it.

Think of all the shitty things Christians have done throughout time; all the messed up Catholic/Puritant dogma that has subjugated Women/Homosexuals/Ethnic minorities/Freedom of Sexual Expression(I went to a Catholic school) /"Savage" cultures, is responsible for burning people alive, stifled the creativity of some of the worlds greatest minds, halting the progress of Mankind, lying, cheating, stealing, raping and extermination.
and are opposed to guns and abortion

now tell me that Islam disgusts you..... it makes me wanna wretch

I think a dose of perspective is in order

Ah, but in the case of Christianity there is NOTHING in the Gospels to support any of that. Its pretty much peace and love. Christianity isn't culture specific, its just a religion. Just because someone is a Christian and a raping plunderer of the Holy Land that doesn't make Christianity responsible for his Germanic culture.

Yes, the Church hasn't always been a shining light but you can take away the institution and the religion will revert to hippy love.

By contrast Islam has a very exact and specific culture embedded in the religion. Arabic culture.

Therefore Islam is responsible for things such as forced conversion and the way women are treated. Although, as far as I know, the Hijab and the Burkha are not specifically commanded in the Koran.

[yesdachi]

Thats the problem right there.

If you read enough bad press about one religion and the actions of its devotees then, especially in the hyped and loaded atmosphere of partisan 24hr news media, then you will definitely start to have bad feelings about it.

Think of all the shitty things Christians have done throughout time; all the messed up Catholic/Puritant dogma that has subjugated Women/Homosexuals/Ethnic minorities/Freedom of Sexual Expression(I went to a Catholic school) /"Savage" cultures, is responsible for burning people alive, stifled the creativity of some of the worlds greatest minds, halting the progress of Mankind, lying, cheating, stealing, raping and extermination.
and are opposed to guns and abortion

now tell me that Islam disgusts you..... it makes me wanna wretch

I think a dose of perspective is in order
That’s not the problem, the problem is that the millions of “good” Muslims are allowing their religion to be hijacked and letting the word Islam and Muslim be turned into a disgusting thing. Christianity has had its share of PR issues but they pale in comparison to the ones Islam is having right now, from a westerner’s perspective.

It is not a religions disgust factor compared to Christianity that matters, its how it stands alone, and right now, the way it is being most commonly displayed is disgusting.

However, in contrast, Christianity is looking pretty nice, it has been some time since Christians were responsible for burning people alive, but it has only been a few, what hours, since some Islamo/Muslim/facist/whateveryouwanttocallthem blew the heck out of some innocent people.

I think it is very fair to say “The more I read about Islam and the actions of Muslims. The more the religion starts to disgust me.”

A dose of perspective is indeed in order.

[ezrider]

Yes, the Church hasn't always been a shining light but you can take away the institution and the religion will revert to hippy love.

Why?

You cannot seriously tell me that Christianity doesn't bring a certain culture with it: that being the bastard son of judaeism/GrecoRoman "civility and reason" and a dash of Northern European Pagan ritual.
If you took away the Churches, then the Religion, and the culture that these Institutions bring with them, would fall apart into chaos and depravity, sexy depravity and abortions and guns.

But I do agree with your point about Islam being specifically Arab in design and context.

--- I hope by " the Church" you also mean protestants, they're no angels either.

[ezrider]

That’s not the problem, the problem is that the millions of “good” Muslims are allowing their religion to be hijacked and letting the word Islam and Muslim be turned into a disgusting thing. Christianity has had its share of PR issues but they pale in comparison to the ones Islam is having right now, from a westerner’s perspective.

It is not a religions disgust factor compared to Christianity that matters, its how it stands alone, and right now, the way it is being most commonly displayed is disgusting.

However, in contrast, Christianity is looking pretty nice, it has been some time since Christians were responsible for burning people alive, but it has only been a few, what hours, since some Islamo/Muslim/facist/whateveryouwanttocallthem blew the heck out of some innocent people.

I think it is very fair to say “The more I read about Islam and the actions of Muslims. The more the religion starts to disgust me.”

A dose of perspective is indeed in order.


I think it is very fair to say “The more I read about Islam and the actions of Muslims. The more the religion starts to disgust me.”

So your saying that Islam, the religion is digusting and the behavior of
Islamo/Muslim/facist/whateveryouwanttocallthems is also disgusting and making the "good Muslims" (worshipers of this disgusting religion) look worse.:dizzy2:

[yesdachi]

Nope, I am saying that the “Islamo/Muslim/facist/whateveryouwanttocallthems” are making the religion look, not just bad but disgusting.

[ezrider]

The above quote implies that its the religion itself that is disgusting. If its the behavior of fanatics that makes it look disgusting then, say so explicitly.

lazy semantics promote hate and bad feeling.

[yesdachi]

The above quote implies that its the religion itself that is disgusting. If its the behavior of fanatics that makes it look disgusting then, say so explicitly.

lazy semantics promote hate and bad feeling.
If all I read about Islam was from the news/mass media then my impression would be that the religion was disgusting.

Jumping to conclusions like the “Islamo/Muslim/facist/whateveryouwanttocallthems” did about the Pope’s speech and like you did about holybandit’s comment is what causes hate and bad feelings (Lazy semantics don’t help) then throwing in the “Christianity has done bad stuff too” is just asking for hate and bad feelings.

[sharrukin]

The above quote implies that its the religion itself that is disgusting. If its the behavior of fanatics that makes it look disgusting then, say so explicitly.

lazy semantics promote hate and bad feeling.

The Quran itself makes it look disgusting as well.

The life of their prophet, his deeds and actions ( I get as many women as I want and 9 year olds as well) , rapes, massacres, pillaging, also make it look disgusting.

The history of their conduct through the ages are consistent with the Quran.

The conduct of their adherents to this day, continues unabated...the slavery in Sudan, Mauritania, and other places. The Janjaweed raiders, Beslan, terrorists, Muhjadeen, etc continues just as it did in the days of the Ghazi raiders. Their intolerance towards other religions. Their reactionary attitude towards dangerous cartoons, and speeches. Nothing has changed...in a thousand years, nothing has changed.

And no, those are NOT semantics, they are dead bodies.

[ezrider]

Holybandits comment was an incendiary statement, derived from his experieces of Islam. I did jump the gun and claim that Holybandit was influenced solely by the media, my bad. The Muslim clerics said the Pope was insulting Islam, Benny said he was simply quoting a 14th century Monarch and those views were not his own. What conclusions where the Muslims jumping to? That the Pope hates Islam, right? It seems to me that both yourself and Holybandit(sorry for repeated using your name) genuinely dislike Islam. Am I jumping to conclusions or would you say I was close to the mark?

The antiChristian comments, while sensationalised, aren't without a grain of truth. I was merely trying to put our fascination of the bad side of Islam into perspective. Christians have played nice for a while now(sort of- The Troubles in NI) and history has judged. How will it judge this period? probably more harshly because of the scale of exposure and that's unfair.

[ezrider]

The Quran itself makes it look disgusting as well.

The life of their prophet, his deeds and actions ( I get as many women as I want and 9 year olds as well) , rapes, massacres, pillaging, also make it look disgusting.

The history of their conduct through the ages are consistent with the Quran.

The conduct of their adherents to this day, continues unabated...the slavery in Sudan, Mauritania, and other places. The Janjaweed raiders, Beslan, terrorists, Muhjadeen, etc continues just as it did in the days of the Ghazi raiders. Their intolerance towards other religions. Their reactionary attitude towards dangerous cartoons, and speeches. Nothing has changed...in a thousand years, nothing has changed.

And no, those are NOT semantics, they are dead bodies.


So why do peaceful Muslim communities exist if nothing has changed.
I think Muslims are perfectly capable of living side by side with other religions and HAVE DONE SO FOR CENTURIES.
If you think Islamists have a monopoly on intolerance and death you are sadly mistaken

[King Henry V]

That is because it is not a completely warlike religion. However, it is more extremist and aggressive than most other religions.

[Reenk Roink]

Essentially ezrider, you have a situation similiar to that of 1930's Europe. A certain religion and by extension its followers are demonized.

Some signs:

Use of content in religious scripture to make a point is widespread. Nevermind what the leaders of the religion/group have to say about it and its interpretation.

In the 1930's, it was Talmudic/Old Testament verses, now Quranic/Hadith verses.

Check this out for a comparison between the two:

http://mocomedy.blogspot.com/2006/09/lgf-rip-off-of-1930s-german-kids-book.html

LGF: Rip-off of 1930s German Kids' Book
I used to let my son read Little Green Footballs because the title seemed innocent. When I read it, I thought it was funny as all get out. Unfortunately, none of it is original. I don't mind my son reading hate speech. But the reason I don't let him read anything by Hezbollah or Hamas is because their literature is derivative of the Nazis. Well turns out that some readers of LGF have been stealing from this 1930s German kids' book I learned about on Boing Boing. What's poor Charlie Johnson to do? He can't track down all the comments on his page! I figured I would help him find these thieves.



The Inconspicuous Enemy

The Toadstool
"Just as it is often hard to tell a toadstool from an edible mushroom, so too it is often very hard to recognize the Jew as a swindler and criminal..."



Little Green Footballs
"Okay here comes the splash of cold water. Are you sure the writer is Muslim? Are you sure he is not engaging in taquiya? The fine Muslim art of lying through his teeth."

On Cleanliness

Toadstool

"Just look at these guys! The louse-infested beards! The filthy, protruding ears..."

Little Green Footballs

"We should realize that because we refuse (except maybe you perhaps) to convert to islam, it is our fault the filthy Arab animals, the islamic animals you defend, are out raping little girls and boys, beheading men and women and killing anyone and everyone who does not bow down to them in the name of allah."


That Darn Book


The Toadstool

"In the Talmud it is written: 'Only the Jew is human. Gentile peoples are not called humans, but animals.'"

Little Green Footballs

"Because it's in the Koran
It's written in the Koran
That we should fight and slay the infidels
However we can"

Cruelty to Animals

The Toadstool

"The animal fell once more to the ground. Slowly it died. The Jews stood around and laughed."


Little Green Footballs

"Gratuitous Arab cruelty to animals is an underexplored topic."

The Struggle

The Toadstool

"He spoke of the Jews and their revolting crimes. He spoke of the great danger the Jews were to the whole world.

'Without a solution of the Jewish question, No salvation for Mankind!'"



Little Green Footballs

"The way I see it, the War on Terror...'It's Islam, Stooopid!'"
**********************************************************************************
I need to find something for my son that does not rip off the Nazis. Maybe the Internet is a dangerous place for children after all. Oh, here's a nice book on camps.

See here for a typical Muslim jurist response to claims about jihad and the like:

http://www.livingislam.org/maa/dcmm_e.html

Introduction

down

In the Name of God, the All-Beneficent, the Most Merciful.
Gentle reader, Peace upon those who follow right guidance!
I am honored to present the following fatwa or "response by a qualified Muslim Scholar" against the killing of civilians by the Oxford-based Malaysian jurist of the Shafi`i School and my inestimable teacher, Shaykh Muhammad Afifi al-Akiti, titled Defending the Transgressed by Censuring the Reckless against the Killing of Civilians.

The Shaykh authored it in a few days, after I asked him to offer some guidance on the issue of targeting civilians and civilian centers by suicide bombing in response to a pseudo-fatwa by a deviant UK-based group which advocates such crimes.

Upon reading Shaykh Afifi's fatwa do not be surprised to find that you have probably never before seen such clarity of thought and expression together with breadth of knowledge of Islamic Law applied (by a non- native speaker) to define key Islamic concepts pertaining to the conduct of war and its jurisprudence, its arena and boundaries, suicide bombing, the reckless targeting of civilians, and more.

May it bode the best start to true education on the impeccable position of Islam squarely against terrorism in anticipation of the day all its culprits are brought to justice.

Dear Muslim reader, as-Salâmu `alaykum wa-rahmatuLlâh:
Read this luminous Fatwa by Shaykh Muhammad Afifi al-Akiti carefully and learn it. Distribute it, publicize it, and teach it. Perhaps we will be counted among those who do something to redress wrong, not only with our hearts as we always do, but also with our tongues, in the fashion of the inspired teachers and preachers of truth.

I have tried to strike the keynote of this Fatwa in a few lines of free verse, mostly to express my thanks to our Teacher but also to seize the opportunity of such a long-expected response to remind myself of the reasons why I embraced Islam in the first place.

A TAQRIZ – HUMBLE COMMENDATION:

Praise to God Whose Law shines brighter than the sun!
Blessings and peace on him who leads to the abode of peace!
Truth restores honor to the Religion of goodness.
Patient endurance lifts the oppressed to the heights
While gnarling mayhem separates like with like:
The innocent victims on the one hand and, on the other,
Silver-tongued devils and wolves who try to pass for just!

My God, I thank You for a Teacher You inspired
With words of light to face down Dajjal's advocates.
Allâh bless you, Ustadh Afifi, for Defending the Transgressed
By Censuring the Reckless Against the Killing of Civilians!
Let the powers that be and every actor-speaker high and low
Heed this unique Fatwa of knowledge and responsibility.

Let every lover of truth proclaim, with pride once more,
What the war-mongers try to bury under lies and bombs:
Islam is peace and truth, the Rule of Law, justice and right!
Murderous suicide is never martyrdom but rather perversion,
Just as no flag on earth can ever justify oppression.
And may God save us from all criminals, East and west!

By permission of Shaykh Afifi I have done some very light editing having
to do mostly with style, spelling, or punctuation such as standardizing
spacing between paragraphs, providing in-text translations of a couple
of Arabic supplications, adding quotation marks to mark out textual
citations, and so forth.

I also provided the following alphabetical glossary of arabic terms not
already glossed by the Shaykh directly in the text

May Allâh Subhânahu wa-Ta'âlâ save Shaykh Muhammad Afifi here and hereafter, may He reward him and his teachers for this blessed work and grant us its much-needed benefits, not least of which the redress of our actions and beliefs for safety here and hereafter.

Blessings and peace on the Prophet, his Family, and all his Companions,
wal-hamdu liLlâhi Rabb al-'âlamîn.

G.F. Haddad
Day of Jumu`a after `Asr
1 Rajab al-Haram 1426
5 August 2005
Brunei Darussalam

GLOSSARY

ahl = [1] people; [2] qualified adherents or practicioners
`aql = intellect, reason
Ahâdith al-Ahkâm = hadîthic proof-texts for legal rulings
`amal = deed, action
asl = see usul
Âyât al-Ahkâm = Qur'ânic proof-texts for legal rulings
bâb = chapter or legal subject
Banû Âdam = human beings
dâbit = see dawâbit
darûra = necessity
dawâbit = pl. of dâbit = standard or pricipal rule
Doctor Angelicus = The Angelic Scholar, a title given to Thomas Aquinas,
the great theologian of the western Church.
da`i = summoner or preacher
dunyâ = this world, this life
fâ'ida = benefit
faqîh = see fiqh
fard `ayn = personal obligation
fard kifâya = communal obligation
far`i = adj. from far`, see furu`
fasl = see fusûl
fatwâ = legal opinion, legal response
fiqh = Islamic jurisprudence, the expertise of the faqîh; adj. fiqhî = legal
fitna = strife, temptation, seduction, delusion, chaos, trial and
tribulation
fitra = sane mind and soul, primordial disposition
fuqahâ' = pl. of faqîh (q.v.)
furû` = pl. of far`, [1] branches (of the Law), secondary legal texts;
[2] corollaries, corollary legal principles
fusûl = pl. of fasl = sections or legal particulars
Hadîth = saying of the Prophet Muhammad, upon him blessings and peace
halâl = lawful, permitted
harâm = categorically prohibited, unlawful
hâsil = legal outcome
hukm [shar`i] = legal status, legal ruling
Iblîs = Satan
Ihsân = Excellence, the pinnacle of religious practice
Ijmâ` = Consensus
ijtihâd = independent judgement, personal decision
insâf = fairness, setting things right
Jâhilî = lit. ignorant; a pre-Islamic or pagan Arab
Jamâ`a = the Orthodox Community
Jamâl al-Shuhadâ' = The Beauty of Martyrs, the title of the
murdered vizier Nizâm al-Mulk
Jihâd = moral or military struggle by the mujâhid
khilâf = (juridical) disagreement
khilâfiyya = fem. adjective from khilâf
= having to do with (juridical) disagreement
madhhab = school of Law
makrûh = detestable, abhorrent, abominable, disliked, legally offensive
maqâsid = pl. of maqsad, objective or ends
maqsad = see maqâsid
masâ'il = pl. of mas'ala = question or legal discussion or case
masâ'il mufassala = detailed questions and answers
mas'ala = see masâ'il
maslaha = welfare, public/general good
mubâh = indifferently permissible
mufassir = exegete
muftî = one who formulates fatwâs or formal legal responses
Muhaqqiq = The Careful Examiner, a title given to Imâm al-Kurdî,
one of the last great jurist of our School
mujâhid = one who does jihâd (q.v.)
mukallaf = legally-responsible Muslim
mushâraka = mutual or reciprocal matter
nafs = ego, self
nasîha = faithful, sincere advice
qadâyâ = pl. of qadîya = issue or legal context
qâdî = judge in an Islamic court of law
qâ'ida = see qawâ'id
qâtil nafsah = self-killer, suicide
qawâ'id = pl. of qâ'ida = maxim or legal principle
qawl = saying or legal position
qitâl = warfare, battle
sabab al-wujûd = raison d'être
sabr = patient endurance and fortitude
Sahâbî = Companions of Prophet Muhammad, upon whom blessings and peace
Salaf = Pious Predecssors, early authorities
shahîd, pl. shuhadâ' = self-sacrificing believer
who dies for the sake of God alone, "martyr"
shar`i = adj. legitimate in the eyes of the
Shari`a (Islamic Law), lawful, legal
siyar = military expeditions
sunna = way, path
sûra = a chapter of the Qurân
Tâbi`î = Successor of the Companions
tafakkur = reflection
tafsîl = detailed legal discussion
tahluka = self-destruction
thaghrîr bil-nafs = risking one's life
tatimma = conclusion
tawakkul = reliance upon God
thawâbit = pl. of thâbit = axiom
Umma = the Muslim Community at large
usûl = pl. of asl = foundational principle; adj. usûlî
wahm = imaginative faculty or emotions
wasâ'il = pl. of wasîla, means
wasîla = see wasâ'il


Defending the Transgressed By
Censuring The Reckless Against
The Killing Of Civilians

Fatwa
according to
the Madhhab of Imâm Shâfi'î
by
Shaykh Muhammad Afifi al-Akiti


Initial Question
If you have time to address this delicate issue for the benefit of this mercied Umma which is reeling in fitna day in and day out, perhaps a few blessed words might use a refutation of the following text as a springboard?
I would like you to read the following article which highlights some of the problems we are facing, and [shows] why it is quite possible that young Muslims turn to extremism. The article was issued by "Al-Muhajiroun" not long ago, headed by Omar Bakri Mohammed, and whatever our reservations about the man, it is the content I am more concerned about, and it is possibly these types of writings which need to be confronted head-on.


Excerpt from an Article by a Group called 'al-Muhajiroun':

AQD UL AMAAN: THE COVENANT OF SECURITY

The Muslims living in the west are living under a covenant of security, it is not allowed for them to fight anyone with whom they have a covenant of security, abiding by the covenant of security is an important obligation upon all Muslims. However for those Muslims living abroad, they are not under any covenant with the kuffar in the west, so it is acceptable for them to attack the non-Muslims in the west whether in retaliation for constant bombing and murder taking place all over the Muslim world at the hands of the non-Muslims, or if it an offensive attack in order to release the Muslims from the captivity of the kuffar. For them, attacks such as the September 11th Hijackings is a viable option in jihad, even though for the Muslims living in America who are under covenant, it is not allowed to do operations similar to those done by the magnificent 19 on the 9/11. This article speaks about the covenant and what the scholars have said regarding Al Aqd Al Amaan - the covenant of security. [...]



Shaykh Muhammad Afifi al-Akiti's Fatwa

bismillahi r-rahman al-rahim
al-hamdulillah alladhi yahuddu l-harba wa-la yuhibbu l-mu'tadina wa s-salatu wa-s-salamu 'ala qa'idi l-ummah alladhi huwa asbaru 'ala adha l-a'da'i bi-futuwwatin kamilatin wa-muru'atin shamilatin wa-'ala alihi wa-ashabihi wa-jayshihi ajma'in!

[In the name of God, the Merciful and Compassionate.
Praise be to God Who sets the boundaries of war and does not love transgressors! Blessings and peace on the General of the Community, the most patient of men in the face of the harm of enemies, with perfect chivalry and complete manliness, and upon all his Family, Companions, and Army!]

This is a collection of masâ'il, entitled:
Mudâfi' al-Mazlûm bi-Radd al-Muhâmil 'alâ Qitâl Man Lâ Yuqâtil
[Defending the Transgressed, by Censuring the Reckless against the Killing of Civilians], written in response to the fitna reeling this mercied Umma, day in and day out, which is partly caused by those who, wilfully or not, misunderstand the legal discussions of the chapter on warfare outside its proper contexts (of which the technical fiqh terminology varies with bâb: siyar, jihâd, or qitâl), which have been used by them to justify their wrong actions. May Allâh open our eyes to the true meaning [haqîqa] of sabr and to the fact that only through it can we successfully endure the struggles we face in this dunyâ, especially during our darkest hours; for indeed He is with those who patiently endure tribulations!

There is no khilâf that all the Shafi'i fuqahâ' of today and other Sunni specialists in the Sacred Law from the Far East to the Middle East reject outright [mardûd] the above opinion and consider it not only an anomaly [shâdhdh] and very weak [wâhin] but also completely wrong [bâtil] and a misguided innovation [bid'a dalâla]: the 'amal cannot at all be adopted by any mukallaf. It is regrettable too that the above was written in a legal style at which any doctor of the Law should be horrified and appalled (since it is an immature yet persuasive attempt to mask a misguided personal opinion with authority from fiqh, and an effort to hijack our Law by invoking one of the many qadâya of this bâb while recklessly neglecting others). It should serve to remind the students of fiqh of the importance of the forming in one's mind and being aware throughout of the thawâbit and the dawâbit when reading a furû' text, in order to ensure that those principal rules have not been breached in any given legal case.

The above opinion is problematic in three legal particulars [fusûl]:

(1) the target [maqtûl]: without doubt, civilians;

(2) the authority for carrying out the killing [âmir al-qitâl]: as no Muslim authority has declared war, or if there has been such a declaration there is at the time a ceasefire [hudna]; and

(3) the way in which the killing is carried out [maqtûl bih]: since it is either harâm and is also cursed as it is suicide [qâtil nafsah], or at the very least doubtful [shubuhât] in a way such that it must be avoided by those who are religiously scrupulous [wara']. Any sane Muslim who would believe otherwise and think the above to be not a crime [jinâya] would be both reckless [muhmil] and deluded [maghrûr]. Instead, whether he realizes it or not, by doing so he would be hijacking rules from our Law which are meant for the conventional (or authorized) army of a Muslim state and addressed to those with authority over it (such as the executive leaders, the military commanders and so forth), but not to individuals who are not connected to the military or those without the political authority of the state [dawla].

The result in Islamic jurisprudence is: if a Muslim carries out such an attack voluntarily, he becomes a murderer and not a martyr or a hero, and he will be punished for that in the Next World.

Fasl I. The Target: Maqtûl
The proposition: "so it is acceptable for them to attack the non-Muslims in the west", where "non-Muslims" can be taken to mean, and indeed does mean in the document, non-combatants, civilians, or in the terminology of fiqh: those who are not engaged in direct combat [man la yuqâtilu].

This opinion violates a well known principal rule [dâbit] from our Law:

"la yajUzu qatlu nisA'ihim wa-la SibyAnihim idhA lam yuqAtilU"

[it is not permissible to kill their [i.e., the opponents'] women and children if they are not in direct combat.]

This is based on the Prophetic prohibition on soldiers from killing women and children, from the well known Hadith of Ibn 'Umar (may Allâh be pleased with them both!) related by Imams Malik, al-Shafi'i, Ahmad, al-Bukhari, Muslim, Ibn Majah, Abu Dawud, al-Tirmidhi, al-Bayhaqi and al-Baghawi (may Allâh be well pleased with them all!) and other Hadiths.

Imam al-Subki ( raDiy-Allahu-anhu.gif may Allâh be pleased with him!) made it unequivocally clear what scholars have understood from this prohibition in which the standard rule of engagement taken from it is that: "[a Muslim soldier] may not kill any women or any child-soldiers unless they are in combat directly, and they can only be killed in self-defence" [al-Nawawi, Majmû', 21:57].

It goes without saying that men and innocent bystanders who are not direct combatants are also included in this prohibition. The nature of this prohibition is so specific and well-defined that there can be no legal justification, nor can there be a legitimate shar'î excuse, for circumventing this convention of war by targeting non-combatants or civilians whatsoever, and that the hukm shar'î of killing them is not only harâm but also a Major Sin [Kabira] and contravenes one of the principal commandments of our way of life.

II. The Authority: Âmir al-Qitâl
The proposition: "so it is acceptable for them to attack the non-Muslims in the west whether in retaliation for constant bombing and murder taking place all over the Muslim world at the hands of the non-Muslims," where it implies that a state of war exist with this particular non-Muslim state on account of its being perceived as the aggressor.

This opinion violates the most basic rules of engagement from our Law:

"amru l-jihAdi mawkulun ila l-imAmi wa-ijtihAdihi wa-yalzamu r-ra'iyyata TA'atuhu fImA yarAhu min dhalika"

[The question of declaring war (or not) is entrusted to the executive authority and to its decision: compliance with that decision is the subject's duty with respect to what the authority has deemed apropriate in that matter.]

and
"wa-li-imamin aw amirin khiyarun bayna l-kaffi wa l-qitAli"
[The executive or its subordinate authority has the option of whether or not
to declare war ].

Decisions of this kind for each Muslim state, such as those questions dealing with ceasefire ['aqd al-hudna], peace settlement ['aqd al-amân] and the judgment on prisoners of war [al-ikhtâr fi asîr] can only be dealt with by the executive or political authority [imâm] or by a subordinate authority appointed by the former authority [amîr mansûbin min jihati l-imâm]. This is something Muslims take for granted from the authority of our naql [scriptures] such that none will reject it except those who betray their 'aql [intellect]. The most basic legal reason ['illa aslîyya] is that this matter is one that involves the public interest, and thus consideration of it belongs solely to the authority:

li-anna hadhA l-amra mina l-masAliHi l-'Ammati
allati yakhtassu l-imAmi bi-n-naZari fI-hA.

All of this is based on the well known legal principle [qâ'ida]:

taSarrufu l-imAmi 'ala r-ra'iyyati manUTun bi l-maSlaHati
[The decisions of the authority on behalf of the subjects
are dependent upon the public good].

And:

fa-yaf'alu l-imAmu wujUban al-aHaZZa li-l-MuslimIna li-ijtihAdihi
[So the authority must act for the greatest advantage
of (all of) the Muslims in making its judgement].

Nasîha: Uppermost in the minds of the authority during their deliberation over whether or not to wage war should be the awareness that war is only a means and not the end. Hence, if there are other ways of achieving the aim, and the highest aim is the right to practice our religion openly (as is indeed the case in modern day Spain, for example, unlike in medieval Reconquista Spain), then it is better [awlâ] not to go to war. This has been expressed in a few words by Imam al-Zarkashî ( raDiy-Allahu-anhu.gif may Allâh be pleased with him!):

wujUbuhu wujUbu l-wasA'ili lA l-maqASidi
[Its necessity is the necessity of means, not ends.]

The upshot is, whether one likes it or not, the decision and discretion and right to declare war or jihâd for Muslims lie solely with the various authorities as represented today by the respective Muslim states - and not with any individual, even if he is a scholar or a soldier (and not just anyone is a soldier or a scholar) - in the same way that an authority (such as the qâdî in a court of law: mahkamah) is the only one with the right to excommunicate or declare someone an apostate [murtad]. Otherwise, the killing would be extra-judicial and unauthorized.

Even during the period of the Ottoman caliphate, for example, another Muslim authority elsewhere, such as in the Indian subcontinent, could have been engaged in a war when at the same time the Khalifa's army was at peace with the same enemy. This is how it has been throughout our long history, and this is how it will always be, and this is the reality on the ground.

Fasl III. The Method: Maqtûl bih
The proposition: "attacks such as the September 11th Hijackings is a viable option in jihâd," where such attacks employ tactics - analogous to the Japanese "kamikaze" missions during the Second World War - that have been described variously as self-sacrificing or martyrdom or suicide missions.

There is no question among scholars, and there is no khilâf on this this question by any qâdî, muftî or faqîh, that this proposition and those who accept it are without doubt breaching the scholarly consensus [mukhâlifun li-l-ijmâ'] of the Muslims since it resulted in the killing of non-combatants; moreover, the proposition is an attempt to legitimize the killing of indisputable non-combatants.

As for the kamikaze method and tactic in which it was carried out, there is a difference of opinion with some jurists as to whether or not it constitutes suicide, which is not only Haram but also cursed. In this, there are further details. (Note that in all of the following cases, it is already assumed that the target is legitimate - i.e., a valid military target - and that the action is carried out during a valid war when there is no ceasefire [fi hâl al-harb wa-lâ l-hudnata fihi], just as with the actual circumstance of the Japanese kamikaze attacks.)

Tafsîl I: If the attack involves a bomb placed on the body or placed so close to the bomber that when the bomber detonates it the bomber is certain [yaqîn] to die, then the More Correct Position [Qawl Asahh] according to us is that it does constitute suicide. This is because the bomber, being also the maqtûl [the one killed], is unquestionably the same as the qâtil [the immediate and active agent that kills] = qâtil nafsah [self-killing, i.e. suicide].

Furu': If the attack involves a bomb (such as the lobbing of a grenade and the like), but the attacker thinks that when it is detonated , it is uncertain [zann] whether he will die in the process or survive the attack, then the Correct Position [Qawl Sahîh] is that this does not constitute suicide, and were he to die in this selfless act, he becomes what we properly call a martyr or hero [shahîd]. This is because the attacker, were he to die, is not the active, willing agent of his own death, since the qâtil is probably someone else.

An example [sûra] of this is: when in its right place and circumstance, such as in the midst of an ongoing fierce battle against an opponent's military unit, whether ordered by his commanding officer or whether owing to his own initiative, the soldier makes a lone charge and as a result of that initiative manages to turn the tide of the day's battle but dies in the process (and not intentionally at his own hand). That soldier died as a hero (and this circumstance is precisely the context of becoming a shahîd - in Islamic terminology - as he died selflessly). If he survives, he wins a Medal of Honour or at the least becomes an honoured war hero and is remembered as a famous patriot (in our terminology, becoming a true mujâhid).

This is precisely the context of the mas'ala concerning the "lone charger" [al-hâjim al-wahîd] and the meaning of putting one's life in danger [al-taghrîr bil-nafs] found in all of the fiqh chapters concerning warfare. The Umma's Doctor Angelicus, Imâm al-Ghazâlî ( raDiy-Allahu-anhu.gif may Allâh be pleased with him!) provides the best impartial summation:

“If it is said: What is the meaning of the words of the Most High:

{wa-lA tulqU bi-aydIkum ila t-tahlukati}
{and do not throw into destruction by your own hands!}
(al-Baqara, 2:195)?

"We say: There is no difference [of opinion amongst scholars] regarding the lone Muslim [soldier] who charges into the battle-lines of the [opposing] non-Muslim [army that is presently in a state of war with his army and is facing them in a battle] and fights [them] even if he knows that he will almost certainly be killed. The case might be tought to go against the requirements of the Verse, but that is not so. Indeed, Ibn 'Abbâs (may Allâh be well pleased with both of them!) says: [the meaning of] "destruction" is not that [incident]. Instead, [its meaning] is to neglect providing [adequate] supplies [nafaqa: for the military campaign; and in the modern context, the state should provide the arms and equipment and so forth for that for which all of this is done] in obedience to God [as in the first part of the Verse which says:

{wa-anfiqU fI sabIli LlAhi}
{And spend for the sake of God} (al-Baqara, 2:195)
]. That is, those who fail to do that will destroy themselves. [In another Sahâbî authority:] al-Barâ' Ibn 'Âzib [al-Ansâri (may Allâh be well pleased with them both!)] says: [the meaning of] "destruction" is [a Muslim] committing a sin and then saying: 'my repentance will not be accepted'. [A Tâbi'î authority] Abû 'Ubayda says: it [the meaning of "destruction"] is to commit a sin and then not perform a good deed after it before he perishes. [Ponder over this!]

In the same way that it is permissible [for the Muslim soldier in the incident above] to fight the non-Muslim [army] until he is killed [in the process], that [extent and consequence] is also permissible for him [i.e., the enforcer of the Law, since the `â'id (antecedent) here goes back to the original pronoun [dâmir al-asl] for this bâb: the muhtasib or enforcer, such as the police] in [matters of] law enforcement [hisba].

However, [note the following qualification (qayd):] were he to know [zanni] that his charge will not cause harm to the non-Muslim [army], such as the blind or the weak throwing himself into the [hostile] battle-lines, then it is prohibited [harâm], and [this latter incident] is included under the general meaning ['umûm] of "destruction" from the Verse [for in this case, he will be literally throwing himself into destruction].

It is only permissible for him to advance [and suffer the consequences] if he knows that he will be able to fight [effectively] until he is killed, or knows that he will be able to demoralize the hearts and minds of the non-Muslim [army]: by their witnessing his courage and by their conviction that the rest of the Muslim [army] are [also] selfless [qilla al-mubâla] in their loyalty to sacrifice for the sake of God [the closest modern non-Muslim parallel would be 'to die for one's country']. By this, their will to fight [shawka] will become demoralized [and so this may cause panic and rout them and thereby be the cause of their battle-lines to collapse].”

[al-Ghazali, Ihya', 2:315-6].

It is clear that this selfless deed which any modern soldier, Muslim or non-Muslim, might perform in battle today is not suicide. It may hyperbolically be described as a 'suicidal' attack, but to endanger one's life is one thing and to commit suicide during the attack is obviously another. And as the passage shows, it is possible to have both situations: an attack that is taghrîr bil-nafs, which is not prohibited; and an attack that is of the tahluka-type, which is prohibited.

Tafsîl II: If the attack involves ramming a vehicle into a military target and the attacker is certain to die, precisely like the historical Japanese kamikaze missions, then our jurists have disagreed over whether it does or does not constitute suicide.

Qawl A: Those who consider it a suicide argue that there is the possibility [zannî] that the maqtûl is the same as the qâtil (as in Tafsil I above) and would therefore not allow for any other qualification whatsoever, since suicide is a cursed sin.

Qawl B: Whereas those who consider otherwise, even with the possibility that the maqtûl is the same as the qâtil, will allow some other qualification such as the possibility that by carrying it out the battle of the day could be won. There are further details in this alternative position, such as that the commanding officer does not have the right to command anyone under him to perform this dangerous mission, so that were it to be sanctioned, it could only be when it is not under anyone else's orders and is the lone initiative of the concerned soldier (such as in defiance of the standing orders of his commanding officer).

The first of the two positions is the Preferred Position [muttajih] among our jurists, as the second is the rarer because of the vagueness of a precedent, and its legal details are fraught with further difficulties and ambiguities, and its opposing position [muqâbil] carries such a weighty consequence (namely, that of suicide, for which there is Ijmâ' that the one who commits suicide will be damned to committing it eternally forever).

In addition to this juristic preference, the first position is also preferable and better since it is the original or starting state [asl], and by invoking the well-known and accepted legal principle:

al-khurUju mina l-khilAfi mustaHabbun
[To avoid controversy is preferable.]

Finally, the first position is religiously safer, since owing to the ambiguity itself of the legal status of the person performing the act - whether it will result in the maqtûl being also the qâtil - and since there is doubt and uncertainty over the possibility of its either being or not being the case, then this position falls under the type of doubtful matters [shubuhât] of the kind [naw'] that should be avoided by those who are religiously scrupulous [wara']. And here, the wisdom of our wise Prophet ( MHMD may Allâh's blessings and peace be upon him!) is illuminated from the Hadith of al-Nu'man ( raDiy-Allahu-anhu.gif may Allâh be well pleased with him!):

"fa-mani ttaqA sh-shubuhAti istabra'a li-dInihi wa 'irDihi"
[He who saves himself from doubtful matters will save his religion and his honour.] (Related by Ahmad, al-Bukhari, Muslim, al-Tirmidhi, Ibn Majah, al-Tabarani, and al-Bayhaqi with variants.)

Wa-Llâhu a'lam bis-sawâb! [God knows best what is right!]

Fa'ida: The original ruling [al-asl] for using a bomb (the medieval precedents: Greek fire [qitâl bil-nâr or ramy al-naft] and catapults [manjanîq]) as a weapon is that it is makrûh [offensive] because it kills indiscriminately [ya'ummu man yuqâtilû wa-man lâ yuqâtilû], as opposed to using rifles (medieval example: a single bow and arrow). If the indiscriminate weapon is used in a place where there are civilians, it becomes harâm except when used as a last resort [min darûra] (and of course, by those military personnel authorised to do so).

Hâsil

From the consideration of the foregoing three legal particulars, it is evident that the opinion expressed regarding the 'amal in the above article is untenable by the standards of our Sacred Law.

As to those who may still be persuaded by it and suppose that the action is something that can be excused on the pretext that there is scholarly khilâf on the details of Tafsil II from Fasl III above (and that therefore, the 'amal itself could at the end of the day be accommodated by invoking the guiding principle that one should be flexible with regards to legal controversies [masâ'il khilâfiyya] and agree to disagree); know then there is no khilâf among scholars that that rationale does not stand, since it is well known that:

lA yunkaru l-mukhtalafu fIhi wa-innamA yunkaru l-mujma'u 'alayhi
[The controversial cannot be denied; only (breach of) the unanimous can be denied.]

Since at the very least, it is agreed upon by all that killing non-combatants is prohibited, there is no question whatsoever that the 'amal overall is outlawed.

The qâ'ida, which is expressed very tersely above, means, understood correctly, that an action about which there is khilâf may be excused, while an action that contravenes the Ijmâ' is categorically rejected.

Masâ'il Mufassala

Question I

If it is said: "I have heard that Islam says the killing of civilians is allowed if they are non-Muslims."

We say: On a joking note (but ponder over this so your hearts may be opened!): the authority is not with what Islam says but with what Allâh (Exalted is He!) and His Messenger ( MHMD may His blessings and peace be upon him!) have said!

But seriously: the answer is absolutely no; for even a novice student of fiqh would be able to see that the first dâbit above concerns already a non-Muslim opponent in the case of a state of war having been validly declared by a Muslim authority against a particular non-Muslim enemy, even when that civilian is a subject or in the care [dhimma] of the hostile non-Muslim state [Dâr al-Harb]. If this is the extent of the limitation to be observed with regards to non-Muslim civilians associated with a declared enemy force, what higher standard will it be in cases if it is not a valid war or when the status of war becomes ambiguous? Keep in mind that there are more than 100 Verses in the Qur'ân commanding us at all times to be patient in the face of humiliation and to turn away from violence [al-i'râd 'ani l-mushrikîn wa l-sabr 'alâ adhâ l-a'dâ'], while there is only one famous Verse in which war (which does not last forever) becomes an option (in our modern context: for a particular Muslim authority and not an individual), when a particular non-Muslim force has drawn first blood.

Question II

If it is said: "What about the verse of the Qur'an which says {kill the unbelievers wherever you find them} and the Sahih Hadith which says 'I have been ordered to fight against the people until they testify'?"

We say: It is well known among scholars that the following verse,

{fa-qtulU l-mushrikIna Haythu wajad-tumUhum}
{kill the idolaters wherever you find them}(al-Tawba, 9:5)
is in reference to a historical episode: those among the Meccan Confederates who breached the Treaty of Hudaybiyya [Sulh al-Hudaybiyya] which led to the Victory of Mecca [Fath Makka], and that therefore, no legal rulings, or in other words, no practical or particular implications, can be derived from this Verse on its own. The Divine Irony and indeed Providence from the last part of the Verse, {wherever you find them} - which many of our mufassirs understood in reference to place (i.e., attack them whether inside the Sacred Precinct or not) - is that the victory against the Meccans happened without a single battle taking place, whether inside the Sacred Precinct or otherwise, rather, there was a general amnesty [wa-mannun 'alayhi bi-takhliyati sabîlihi or naha 'an safki d-dima'] for the Jâhilî Arabs there. Had the Verse not been subject to a historical context, then you should know that it is of the general type ['amm] and that it will therefore be subject to specification [takhsîs] by some other indication [dalîl]. Its effect in lay terms, were it not related to the Jahilî Arabs, is that it can only refer to a case during a valid war when there is no ceasefire.

Among the well known exegeses of "al-mushrikîn" from this Verse are: "al-nâkithîna khâssatan" [specifically, those who have breached (the Treaty)] [al-Nawawi al-Jawi, Tafsîr, 1:331]; "al-ladhîna yuharibunakum" [those who have declared war against you] [Qâdi Ibn 'Arabi, Ahkâm al-Qur'ân, 2:889]; and "khâssan fî mushkrikî l-'arabi dûna ghayrihim" [specifically, the Jâhilî Arabs and not anyone else] [al-Jassâs, Ahkâm al-Qur'ân, 3:81].

As for the meaning of "people" [al-nâs] in the above well-related Hadith, it is confirmed by Ijmâ' that it refers to the same "mushrikîn" as in the Verse of Sura al-Tawba above, and therefore what is meant there is only the Jâhilî Arabs [muskhrikû l-'arab] during the closing days of the Final Messenger and the early years of the Righteous Caliphs and not even to any other non-Muslims.

In sum, we are not in a perpetual state of war with non-Muslims. On the contrary, the original legal status [al-asl] is a state of peace, and making a decision to change this status belongs only to a Muslim authority who will in the Next World answer for their ijtihâd and decision; and this decision is not divinely charged to any individuals - not even soldiers or scholars - and to believe otherwise would go against the well-known rule in our Law that a Muslim authority could seek help from a non-Muslim with certain conditions, including, for example, that the non-Muslim allies are of goodwill towards the Muslims:

[la-yast'Inu bi-mushkrikin illA bi-shurUTin
ka-an takUna niyyatuhu Hasanatan li-l-MuslimIna).

Question III

If it is said: "I have heard a scholar say that 'Israeli women are not like women in our society because they are militarised'. By implication, this means that they fall into the category of women who fight and that this makes them legitimate targets but only in the case of Palestine."

We say: No properly schooled jurists from any of the Four Schools would say this as a legal judgement if they faithfully followed the juridical processes of the orthodox Schools relating to this bâb; for if it is true that the scholar made such a statement and meant it in the way you've implied, then not only does this violate the well-known principal rule above (Fasl I: "It is not permissible to kill their women and children if they are not in direct combat"), but the supposed remarks also show a lack of sophistication in the legal particulars. If this is the case, then it has to be said here that this is not among the masâ'il khilâfiyya, about which one can afford to agree to disagree, since it is outright wrong by the principles and the rules from our usûl and furû'.

Let us restate the dâbit again, as our jurists have succinctly summarised its rule of engagement: a soldier can only attack a female or (if applicable) child soldier (or a male civilian) in self-defence and only when she herself (and not someone else from her army) is engaged in direct combat. (As for male soldiers, it goes without saying that they are considered combatants as soon as they arrive on the battlefield even if they are not in direct combat - provided of course that the remaining conventions of war have been observed throughout, and that all this is during a valid war when there is no ceasefire.)

Not only is this strict rule of engagement already made clear in our secondary legal texts, but this is also obvious from the linguistic analysis of the primary proof-texts used to derive this principal rule. Hence, the form of the verb used in the scriptures, yuqâtilu, is of the mushâraka-type, so that the verb denotes a direct or a personal or a reciprocal relationship between two agents: the minimum for which is one of them making an effort or attempt to act upon the other. The immediate legal implication here is that one of the two can only even be considered a legitimate target when there is a reciprocal or direct relationship.

In reality [wâqi'], this is not what happens on the ground (since the bombing missions are offensive in nature - they are not targeting, for example, a force that is attacking an immediate Muslim force; but rather the attack is directed at an overtly non-military target, so the person carrying it out can only be described as attacking it - and the target is someone unknown until only seconds before the mission reaches its termination).

In short, even if these women are soldiers, they can only be attacked when they are in direct combat and not otherwise. In any case, there are other overriding particulars to be considered and various conditions to be observed throughout, namely, that it must be during a valid state of war when there is no ceasefire.

Question IV

If it is said: "When a bomber blows himself up he is not directing the attack towards civilians. On the contrary, the attack is designed to target off-duty soldiers (which I was told did not mean reservists, since most Israelis are technically reservists). The innocent civilians are unfortunate collateral damage in the targeting of soldiers."

We say: There are two details here.

Tafsîl A: Off-duty soldiers are treated as civilians.

Our jurists agree that during a valid war when there is no ceasefire, and when an attack is not aimed at a valid military target, a hostile soldier (whether male or female, whether conscripted or not) who is not on operational duty or not wearing a military uniform and when there is nothing in the soldier's outward appearance to suggest that the soldier is in combat, then the soldier is considered a non-combatant [man lâ yuqâtilu] (and in this case must therefore be treated as a normal civilian).

A valid military target is limited to either a battlefield [mahall al-ma'raka or sahat al-qitâl] or a military base [mu'askar; medieval examples are citadel or forts; modern examples are barracks, military depots, etc.]; and certainly never can anything else such as a restaurant, a hotel, a public bus, the area around a traffic light, or any other public place be considered a valid military target, since firstly, these are not places and bases from which an attack would normally originate [mahall al-ra'y]; secondly, because there is certain knowledge [yaqîn] that there is intermingling [ikhtilât] with non-combatants; and thirdly, the non-combatants have not been given the option to leave the place.

As for when the soldiers are on the battlefield, the normal rules of engagement apply.

As for when the soldiers are in a barracks or the like, there is further discussion on whether the soldiers become a legitimate target, and the Qawl Asahh [the More Correct Position] according to our jurists is that they do, albeit to attack them there is makrûh.

Tafsîl B: Non-combatants cannot at all be considered collateral damage except at a valid military target, for which they may be so deemed, depending on certain extenuating circumstances.

There is no khilâf that non-combatants or civilians cannot at all be considered collateral damage at a non-military target in a war zone, and that their deaths are not excusable by our Law, and that the one who ends up killing one of them will be sinful as in the case of murder, even though the soldier who is found guilty of it would be excused from the ordinary capital punishment [hadd], unless the killing was found to be premeditated and deliberate:

[aw ata bi-ma'siyyatin tujibu l-hadda].

If not, the murderer's punishment in this case would instead be subject to the authority's discretion [ta'zîr] and he would in any case be liable to pay the relevant compensation [diya].

As for a valid military target in a war zone, the Shâfi'î School have historically considered the possibility of collateral damage, unlike the position held by others that it is unqualifiedly outlawed. The following are the conditions stipulated for allowing this controversial exception (in addition to meeting the most important condition of them all: that this takes place during a valid war when there is no ceasefire:)

(1) The target is a valid military target.

(2) The attack is as a last resort [min darura] (such as when the civilians have been warned to leave the place and after a period of siege has elapsed).

wujUb al-indhAri qabla l-bad'i bi-l-qatli
li-annahu lA yajUzu an yaqtula illA man yuqAtilu

(3) There are no Muslim civilians or prisoners.

(4) The decision to attack the target is based on a considered judgement of the executive or military leader that by doing so, there is a good chance that the battle would be won.

(Furthermore, this position is subject to khilâf among our jurists with regard to whether the military target can be a Jewish or Christian [Ahl l-Kitâb] one, since the sole primary text that is invoked to allow this exception concerns an incident restricted to the same "mushrikin" as in the Verse of Sura al-Tawba in Question II above.)

To neglect intentionally any of these strict conditions is analogous to not fulfilling the conditions [shurût] for a prayer [salât] with the outcome that it becomes invalidated [bâtil] and useless [fasâd].

This is why the means of an act ['amal] must be correct and validated according to the rule of Law in order for its outcome to be sound and accepted, as expressed succinctly in the following wisdom of Imam Ibn 'Ata'illah (may Allâh sanctify his soul!):

man ashraqat bidayatuhu ashraqat nihayatuhu
[He who makes good his beginning will make good his ending.]

In our Law, the ends can never justify the means except when the means are in themselves permissible, or mubâh (and not harâm), as is made clear in the following famous legal principle:

wasIlatu T-TA'ati TA'atun wa-wasIlatu l-ma'Siyati ma'Siyatun
[the means to a reward is itself a reward and the means to a sin is itself a sin.]

Hence, even a simple act such as opening a window, which on its own is only mubâh or halâl, religiously entailing no reward nor being a sin, when a son does it with the intention of his mother's comfort on a hot summer's day before she asks for it to be opened, the originally non-consequent act itself becomes mandûb [recommended] and the son is rewarded in his 'amal-account for the Next World and acquires the pleasure of Allâh.

wAllâhu a'lam wa-ahkam bi-s-sawab!
[God knows and judges best what is right!]

Question V

If it is said: "In a classic manual of Islamic Sacred Law I read that "it is offensive to conduct a military expedition [ghazw] against hostile non-Muslims without the caliph's permission (though if there is no caliph, no permission is required)." Doesn't this entail that though it is makrûh for anyone else to call for or initiate such a jihâd, it is permissible?"

We say:
lA ghazwata illA fi l-jihAdi
[there can be no battle except during a war!]

Secondary legal texts, just as with primary proof-texts (a single Verse of the Qur'an from among the relatively few Âyat al-Ahkâm or a Hadith from among the limited number of Ahâdith al-Ahkâm), must be read and understood in context. The conclusion drawn that it is offensive or permissible for anyone other than those in authority to declare or initiate a war is evidently wrong, since it violates the principal rule of engagement discussed in Fasl II above.

The context is that of endangering one's life [taghrîr bi-nafs] when there is already a valid war with no ceasefire, as seen in the above example from the Ihyâ' passage, but certainly not in executive matters of the kind of proclaiming a war and the like. This is also obvious from the terminology used: a ghazw [a military act, assault, foray or raid; the minimum limit in a modern example: an attack by a squad or a platoon (katîba)] can take place only when there is a state of jihâd [war], not otherwise.

Fâ'ida Imâm Ibn Hajar ( raDiy-Allahu-anhu.gif may Allâh be pleased with him!) lists the organizational structure of an army as follows: a ba'th [unit] and several such together, a katîba [platoon], which is a part of a sariyya [company; made up of 50-100 soldiers], which is in turn a part of a mansar [regiment; up to 800 soldiers], which is a part of a jaysh [division; up to 4000 soldiers], which is a part of a jahfal [army corps; exceeding 4000 soldiers], which makes up the jaysh 'azîm [army]. [Ibn Hajar, Tuhfa, 12:4]

In our School, it is offensive but not completely prohibited for a soldier to defy, or in other words to take the initiative against the wishes of, his direct authority, whether his unit is strong or otherwise. In the modern context, this may include cases when soldier(s) disagree with a particular decision or strategy adopted by their superior officers, whether during a battle or otherwise.

The accompanying commentary to the text you quoted will help clarify this for you:

[Original Text:] It is offensive to conduct an assault [whether the unit is strong (man'a) or otherwise; and some have defined a strong force as 10 men] without the permission of the authority ([Commentary:] or his subordinate, because the assault depends on the needs [of the battle and the like] and the authority is more aware about them. It is not prohibited [to go without his permission] (if) there is no grave endangering of one's life even when that is permissible in war.) [Ibn Barakat, Fayd, 2:309]

Question VI

If it is said: "What is the meaning of the rule in fiqh that I always hear, that jihâd is a fard kifâya [communal obligation] and when the Dâr al-Islâm is invaded or occupied it is a fard 'ayn [personal obligation]? How do we apply this in the context of a modern Muslim state such as Egypt?"

We say: It is fard kifâya for the eligible Muslim subjects of the state in the sense that recruitment to the military is only voluntary when the state declares war with a non-Muslim state (as for non-Muslim subjects, they evidently are not religiously obligated but can still serve). It becomes a fard 'ayn for any able-bodied Muslim when there is a conscription or a nationwide draft to the military if the state is invaded by a hostile non-Muslim force, but only until the hostile force is repelled or the Muslim authority calls for a ceasefire. As for those not in the military, they have the option to defend themselves if attacked even if they have to resort to throwing stones and using sticks [bi ayyi shay'in aTAqUhu wa-law bi-HijAratin aw 'aSA].

Furu': When it is not possible to prepare for war [and rally the army for war (ijtimâ' li-harb), and a surprise attack by a hostile force completely defeats the army of the state and the entire state becomes occupied] and someone [at home, for example] is faced with the choice of whether to surrender or to fight [such as when the hostile force comes knocking at the door], then he may fight. Or he may surrender, provided that he knows [with certainty] that if he resisted [arrest] he would be killed and that [his] wife would be safe from being raped [fâhisha] if she were taken. If not [that is to say, even if he surrenders he knows he will be killed and his wife raped when taken], then [as a last resort] fighting [jihâd] becomes personally obligatory for him. [al-Bakri, I'ânat, 4:197].

Reflect upon this legal ruling of our Religion and the emphasis placed upon preserving human life and upon the wisdom of resorting to violence only when it is absolutely necessary and in its proper place; and witness the conjunction between the maqâsid and the wasâ'il and the meaning of the conditions when fighting actually becomes a fard 'ayn for an individual!

Question VII

If it is said today: "In the (Shafi`i) Madhhab, what are the different classifications of lands in the world? For example, Dar al-Islam, Dar al-Kufr and so forth, and what have the classical ulema said their attributes are?"

We say: As it is also from empirical fact [tajrîba], Muslim scholars have classified the territories in this world into: Dâr al-Islâm [its synonyms: Bilâd al-Islâm or Dawla al-Islâm; a Muslim state or territory or land or country, etc.] and Dâr al-Kufr [a non-Muslim state, territory etc.]

The definition of a Muslim state is: "any place at which a resident Muslim is capable of defending himself against hostile forces [harbiyyûn] for a period of time is a Muslim state, where his judgements can be applied at that time and those times following it." [Ba'alawi, Bughya, 254]. A non-Muslim who resides in a Muslim state is, in our terminology: kâfir dhimmi or al-kâfir bi-dhimmati l-Muslim [a non-Muslim in the care of a Muslim state].

By definition, an area is a Muslim state as long as Muslims continue to live there and the political and executive authority is Muslim. (Think about this, for the Muslim lands are many, varied, wide and extensive; and how poor and of limited insight are those who have tried to limit the definition of what a Muslim state must be, and whether realizing it or not thus try to shrink the Muslim world!)

As for a non-Muslim state, it is the absence of a Muslim state.

As for the Dâr al-Harb [sometimes called, Ard al-'Adw], it is a non-Muslim state which is in a state of war with a Muslim state. Therefore, a hostile non-Muslim soldier from there is known in our books as: kâfir harbî.

Furu': Even if such a person enters or resides in a Muslim country that is in a state of war with his home country, provided of course he does so with the permission of the Muslim authority (such as entering with a valid visa and the like), the sanctity of a kâfir harbî's life is protected by Law, just like the rest of the Muslim and non-Muslim subjects of the state. [al-Kurdi, Fatâwâ, 211-2]. In this case, his legal status becomes a kâfir harbî bi-dhimmati l-imâm [a hostile non-Muslim under the protection of the Muslim authority], and for all intents and purposes, he becomes exactly like the non-Muslim subjects of the state. In this way, the apparent difference between a dhimmî and a harbî non-Muslim becomes only an academic exercise and a distinction in name only.

The implications of this rule for the pious, God-fearing and Law-abiding Muslims are not only that to attack non-Muslims becomes something illegal and an act of disobedience [ma'siya], but also that the steps taken by the Muslim authority and enforcers, such as in Malaysia or Indonesia today, to protect their places, including churches or temples, from the threat of killings and bombings, are included under the bâb of amr bi-ma'ruf wa nahi 'ani l-munkar [the duty to intervene when another is acting wrongly; in the modern context: enforcing the Law], even if the Muslim enforcers [muhtasib] die in the course of protecting non-Muslims.

Question VIII

If it is said: "What land classification are we in the European Union, and what is the hukm of those who are here? Should they theoretically leave?"

We say: It is clear that the countries in the Union are non-Muslim states, except for Turkey or Bosnia, for example, if they are a part of the Union. The status of the Muslims who reside and are born in non-Muslim states is the reverse of the above non-Muslim status in a Muslim state: al-Muslim bi-dhimmati l-kâfir [a Muslim in the care of a non-Muslim state] and from our own Muslim and religious perspective, whether we like it or not, there are similarities to the status of a guest which should not be forgotten.

There is precedent for this status in our Law. The answer to your question is that they should as a practical matter remain in these countries, and if applicable, learn to cure the schizophrenic cultural condition in which they may find themselves - whether of torn identity in their souls or of dissociation from the general society. If they cannot do so, but find instead that their surroundings are incompatible with the life they feel they must lead, then it is recommended for them to leave and reside in a Muslim state. This status is made clear in the fatwa of the Muhaqqiq, Imam al-Kurdi ( raDiy-Allahu-anhu.gif may Allâh be pleased with him!):

"He ( raDiy-Allahu-anhu.gif may the mercy of Allâh - Exalted is He! - be upon him!) was asked:
"In a territory ruled by non-Muslims, they have left the Muslims [in peace] other than that they pay tax [mâl] every year just like the jizya-tax in reverse, for when the Muslims pay them, their protection is ensured and the non-Muslims do not oppose them [i.e., do not interfere with them]. Thereupon, Islam becomes practiced openly and our Law is established [meaning that they have the freedom to practice their religious duty in the open and in effect become practicing Muslims in that non-Muslim society]. If the Muslims do not pay them, the non-Muslims could massacre them by killing or pillage. Is it permissible to pay them the tax [and thereby become residents there]? If you say it is permissible, what is the ruling about the non-Muslims mentioned above when they are at war [with a Muslim state]: would it or would it not be permissible to oppose them and if possible, take their money? Please give us your opinion!

The answer:

Insofar as it is possible for Muslims to practice their religion openly with what they can have power over, and they are not afraid of any threat [fitna] to their religion if they pay tax to the non-Muslims, it is permissible for them to reside there. It is also permissible to pay them the tax as a requirement of it [residence]; rather, it is obligatory [wâjib] to pay them the tax for fear of their causing harm to the Muslims. The ruling about the non-Muslims at war as mentioned above, because they protect the Muslims [in their territory], is that it would not be permissible for the Muslims to murder them or to steal from them.
[al-Kurdi, Fatawa, 208]

The dâbit for this mas'ala is:

wa-in qadara 'ala iZhAri d-dIni wa-lam yakhafi l-fitnata fi d-dIni wa-nafsihi wa-mAlihi lam tajib 'alayhi al-hijratu
[if someone is able to practice his religion openly and is not afraid of trouble to his religion, life and property, then emigration is not obligatory for him.]

Furu': Our Shâfi'î jurists have discussed details concerning the case of Muslims residing in a non-Muslim state, and they have divided the legal rulings about their emigration from it to a Muslim state into four sorts (assuming that an individual is capable and has the means to emigrate):

1. Harâm: It is prohibited for them to leave when they are able to defend their territory from a hostile non-Muslim force or withdraw from it (as in the case of a border state, buffer area or disputed territory) and do not need to ask for help from a Muslim state. The reason is that their place of residence is already, technically [hukman], a 'Muslim state' even though not in name [sûratan], since they are able to practice their religion openly even though the political or executive authority is not Muslim; and if they emigrated it would cease to be so. This falls under the fiqhî classification of Dâr Kufr Sûratan Lâ Hukman, which is equivalent to Dâr Islâm Hukman Lâ Sûratan.

2. Makrûh: it is offensive to leave their place of residence when it is possible for them to practice their religion openly, and they wish to do so openly.

3. Mandûb: leaving becomes recommended only when it is possible for them to practice their religion openly, but they do not wish to do so.

4. Wâjib: it becomes obligatory to leave when it is the only remaining option, that is, when practicing their religion openly is not possible. A legal precedent is the case after the Reconquista in Spain (which is no longer the case today) when the Five Pillars of the Faith were actively proscribed, so that, for example, the Muslim houses were required to keep their doors open after sunset during the fasting month of Ramadân in order that the authority could see that there was no breaking of the fast.

Question IX

If it is said: "Would you say that in the modern age with all the considerations surrounding sovereignty and inter-connectedness, these classical labels do not apply any longer, or do we have sufficient resources in the School to continue using these same labels?"

We say: As Imam al-Ghazâlî would say:

idhâ `urifa l-ma`nâ falâ mushâhhata fî l-asmâmî
[Once the real meaning is understood, there is no need to quibble over names.]

Labels can never be relied upon; it is the meaning behind them that must be properly understood. Once they are unpacked, they immediately become relevant for all times; just as with the following loaded terms: jihâd, mujâhid and shahîd. The result for Muslims who fail to notice the relevance and fail to connect the dots of our own inherited medieval terms with the modern world may be that they will live in a schizophrenic cultural reality and will be unable to associate themselves with the surrounding society and will not be at peace [sukûn] with the rest of creation. Just as the sabab al-wujûd of this article is a Muslim's misunderstanding of his own medieval terminology from a long and rich legacy, the fitna in the world today has been the result of those who misunderstand our Law.

Pay heed to the words of Mawlânâ Rûmî (may Allâh sanctify his secrets!):

Go beyond names and look at the qualities, so that they may show you the way to the essence.

The disagreement of people takes place because of names. Peace occurs when they go to the real meaning.

Every war and every conflict between human beings has happened because of some disagreement about names.

It's such an unnecessary foolishness, because just beyond the arguing there's a long table of companionship, set and waiting for us to sit down.

End of the masâ'il section.




Tatimma

It is truly sad that despite our sophisticated and elaborate set of rules of engagement and in spite of the strict codes of warfare and the chivalrous disciplines which our soldiers are expected to observe, all having been thoroughly worked out and codified by the orthodox jurists of the Umma from among the generations of the Salaf, there are today in our midst those who are not ashamed to depart from these sacred conventions in favour of opinions espoused by persons who are not even trained in the Sacred Law at all let alone enough to be a qâdî or a faqîh - the rightful heir and source from which they should receive practical guidance in the first place. Instead they rely on engineers or scientists and on those who are not among its ahl, yet speak in the name of our Law. With these "reformist" preachers and da'îs comes a departure from the traditional ideas about the rules of siyar/jihâd/qitâl, i.e., warfare. Do they not realize that by doing so and by following them they will be ignoring the limitations and restrictions cherished and protected by our pious forefathers and that they will be turning their backs on the Jamâ'a and Ijmâ' and that they will be engaging in an act for which there is no accepted legal precedent within orthodoxy in our entire history? Have they forgotten that part of the original maqsad of warfare/jihâd was to limit warfare itself and that warfare for Muslims is not total war, so that women, children and innocent bystanders are not to be killed and property not to be needlessly destroyed?

To put it plainly, there is simply no legal precedent in the history of Sunni Islam for the tactic of attacking civilians and overtly non-military targets. Yet the awful reality today is that a minority of Sunni Muslims, whether in Iraq or Beslan or elsewhere, have perpetrated such acts in the name of jihâd and on behalf of the Umma. Perhaps the first such mission to break this long and admirable precedent was the Hamas bombing on a public bus in Jerusalem in 1994 - not that long ago. (Reflect on this!)

Immediately after the incident, the almost unanimous response of the orthodox Shâfi'î jurists from the Far East and the Hadramawt was not only to make clear that the minimum legal position from our Sacred Law is untenable for persons who carry out such acts, but also to warn the Umma that by going down that path we would be compromising the optimum way of Ihsân and that we would thereby be running a real risk of losing the moral and religious high ground. Those who still defend this tactic, invoking blindly a nebulous usûlî principle that it is justifiable out of darûra while ignoring the far'î strictures, must look long and hard at what they are doing and ask the question: was it absolutely necessary, and if so, why was this not done before 1994, and especially during the earlier wars, most of all during the disasters of 1948 and 1967?

How could such a tactic be condoned by one of our Rightly Guided Caliphs and a heroic fighter such as 'Alî (may Allâh ennoble his face!), who when in the Battle of the Trench his notorious non-Muslim opponent, who was seconds away from being killed by him, spat on his noble face, immediately left him alone. When asked later his reasons for withdrawing when Allâh clearly gave him power over him, he answered: "I was fighting for the sake of God, and when he spat in my face I feared that if I killed him it would have been out of revenge and spite!" Far from being an act of cowardice, this characterizes Muslim chivalry: fighting, yet not out of anger.

In actual fact, the only precedent for this tactic from Muslim history is the cowardly terrorism carried out by the "Assassins" of the Nizari Isma'îlîs. Their most famous victim from a suicide mission was the wise minister and the Defender of the Faith, who could have been alive to deal with the fitna of the Crusades: Nizâm al-Mulk, the Jamâl al-Shuhadâ' (may Allâh encompass him with His mercy!), assasinated on Thursday, the 10th of the holy month of Ramadan 485/14 October 1092.

Ironically, in the case of Palestine, the precedent was set not by Muslims but by early Zionist terrorist gangs such as the Irgun, who, for example, infamously bombed the King David Hotel in Jerusalem on 22nd July 1946. So ask yourself as an upright and God-fearing believer, whose every organ will be interrogated: do you really want to follow the footsteps and the models of those Zionists and the heterodox Isma'îlîs, instead of the path taken by our Beloved (may Allâh's blessings and peace be upon him!), who for almost half of the (twenty-three) years of his mission endured Meccan persecution, humiliation and insults? Is anger your only strength? If so, remember the Prophetic advice that it is from the Devil. And is darûra your only excuse for following them instead into their condemned lizard-holes? Do you think that any of our famous mujâhids from history, such as 'Ali, Salâh al-Dîn, and Muhammad al-Fâtih (may Allâh be well pleased with them all!) will ever condone the article you quoted and these acts today in Baghdad, Jerusalem, Cairo, Bali, Casablanca, Beslan, Madrid, London and New York, some of them committed on days when it is traditionally forbidden by our Law to fight: Dhû l-Qa'da and al-Hijja, Muharram and Rajab? Every person of fitra will see that this is nothing other than a sunna of perversion.

This is what happens to the Banû Adam when the wahm is abandoned by 'aql, when one of the maqâsid justifies any wasîla, when the realities of furû' are indiscriminately overruled by generalities of usûl, and most tragically, as illustrated from the eternal blunder of Iblis, when Divine tawakkul is replaced by basic nafs.

Yes, we are one Umma such that when one part of the macro-body is attacked somewhere, another part inevitably feels the pain. Yet at the same time, our own history has shown that we have also been a wise and sensible, instead of a reactive and impulsive, Umma. That is the secret of our success, and that is where our strengths will always lie as has been promised by Divine Writ: in sabr and in tawakkul. It is already common knowledge that when Jerusalem fell to the Crusading forces on the 15th of July 1099 and was occupied by them, and despite its civilians having been raped, killed, tortured and plundered and the Umma at the time humiliated and insulted - acts far worse than what can be imagined in today's occupation - that it took more than 100 years of patience and legitimate struggle under the Eye of the Almighty before He allowed Salâh al-Din to liberate Jerusalem. We should have been taught from childhood by our fathers and mothers about the need to prioritize and about how to reconcile the spheres of our global concerns with those of our local responsibilities - as we will definitely not escape the questioning in the grave about the latter - so that by this insight we may hope that our response will not be disproportionate nor inappropriate. This is the true meaning [haqîqa] of the true advice [nasîha] of our Beloved Prophet ( MHMD may Allâh's blessings and peace be upon him!): to leave what does not concern one [tark ma lâ ya'nîh], where one's time and energy could be better spent in improving the lot of the Muslims today or benefiting others in this world.

Yes, we will naturally feel the pain when any of our brothers and sisters die unjustly anywhere when their deaths have been caused directly by non-Muslims, but it must be the more painful for us when they die in Iraq, for example, when their deaths are caused directly by the self-destroying/martyrdom/suicide missions carried out by one of our own. On tafakkur, the second pain should make us realize that missions of this sort, when the means and the legal particulars are all wrong - by scripture and reason - are not only a scourge for our non-Muslim neighbours but a plague and great fitna for this mercied Umma, and desire insâf so that out of maslaha and the general good, it must be stopped.

To this end, we could sum up a point of law tersely in the following maxim:

lA yaj'alu Z-ZulmAni th-thAniya Haqqan
[two wrongs do not make the second one right]

If the first pain becomes one of the mitigating factors and ends up being used as a justification by our misguided young to retaliate in a manner which our Sacred Law definitely and without doubt outlaws (which makes your original article the more appalling, as its author will have passed the special age of 40), then the latter pain should by its graver significance generate a greater and more meaningful response. With this intention, we may hope that we shall regain our former high ground and reputation and rediscover our honour and chivalrous qualities and be no less brave.

I end with the first ever Verse revealed in the Qur'an which bestowed the military option only upon those in a position of authority:

wa-qAtilU fI sabIli LlAhi l-ladhIna yuqAtilUnakum
wa-lA ta'tadU inna LlAha lA yuHibbu l-mu'tadIna

{And fight for the sake of God those who fight you: but do not commit excesses, for God does not love those who exceed (i.e., the Law)}
(al-Baqara, 2:190).

Even then, peace is preferred over war:

wa-in janaHU li-s-salmi fa-jnaH la-hA wa-tawakkal 'ala LlAhi

{Now if they incline toward peace,
then incline to it, and place your trust in God}
(al-Anfal, 8:61)

Even if you think that the authority in question has decided wrongly and you disagree with their decision not to war with the non-Muslim state upon which you wish war to be declared, then take heed of the following Divine command:

yA ayyhuhA l-ladhIna AmanU aTI'u l-LAha wa-aTI'u r-rasUla wa-uli l-amri minkum

{O believers, obey Allâh, and obey the Messenger, and those with authority among you!}
(al-Nisa', 4:58)

If you still insist that your authority should declare war with the non-Muslim state upon which you wish war to be declared, then the most you could do in this capacity is to lobby your authority for it. However, if your anger is so unrestrained that its fire brings out the worst in you to the point that your disagreement with your Muslim authority leads you to declare war on those you want your authority to declare war on, and you end up resorting to violence, then know with certainty that you have violated our own religious Laws. For then you will have taken the Sharî'a into your own hands. If indeed you reach the point of committing a violent act, then know that by our own Law you would have been automatically classified as a rebel [ahl al-baghy] whom the authority has the right to punish: even if the authority is perceived to be or is indeed corrupt [fâsiq]. (The definition of rebels is: "Muslims who have disagreed [not by heart or by tongue but by hand] with the authority even if it is unjust [jâ'ir] and they are correct ['adilûn]" [al-Nawawî, Majmû', 20:337].)

That is why, my brethren, when the military option is not a legal one for the individuals concerned, you must not lose hope in Allâh; and let us be reminded of the words of our Beloved ( MHMD may Allâh's blessings and peace be upon him!):

afDalu l-jihAdi kalimatu Haqqin 'inda sulTAnin jA'irin
[The best Jihad is a true (i.e., brave) word in the face of a tyrannical ruler.] (From a Hadîth of Abû Sa'îd al-Khudrî ( raDiy-Allahu-anhu.gif may Allâh be well pleased with him!) among others, which is related by Ibn al-Ja'd, Ahmad, Ibn Humayd, Ibn Mâjâh, Abû Dawûd, al-Tirmidhî, al-Nasâ'î, Abû Ya'lâ, Abû Bakr al-Rûyânî, al-Tabarânî, al-Hâkim, and al-Bayhaqî, with variants.)

For it is possible still, and especially today, to fight injustice or zulm and taghût in this dunyâ through your tongue and your words and through the pen and the courts, which still amounts in the Prophetic idiom to jihâd, even if not through war. As in the reminder [tadhkira] of the great scholar, Imâm al-Zarkashî: war is only a means to an end and as long as some other way is open to us, that other way should be the course trod upon by Muslims.

Ma shâ-Allâh, how true indeed are the Beloved's words, so that the latter mujâhid or activist will be no less brave or lacking in any courage with his or her campaign for a just cause in an oppressive country or one needing reforms than the former mujâhid or patriot who fought bravely for his country in a just war.

fa-t-taqillaha wa-raji' mufatashata nafsika wa-islaha fasadiha wa-huwa hasbuna wa-ni'ma l-wakil wa-la hawla wa-la quwwata illa billahi l-'aliyyi l-'azim! wa-salawatuhu 'ala sayyidina Muhammadin wa-alihi wasallim waradiyAllâhu tabaraka wa-ta'ala 'an sadatina ashabi rasulillahi ajma'in wa-'anna ma'ahum wa-fihim wa-yaj'aluna min hizbihim bi-rahmatikaya arhama r-rahimin! Âmin!

[Fear God, and go back to controlling your self and to curing your wickedness! For indeed, He is enough for us: what an excellent guardian! There is no help nor power except through God, the High and Mighty! May His blessings and peace be upon our master, Muhammad, and his Family! And may He be pleased with our leaders, the Companions of the Messenger of God, one and all! And may we be together with them and in their company, and may He make us among their Troop! By Your Mercy, O Most Merciful of those who show mercy, Amen!]

May this be of benefit.

With heartfelt wishes for salâm & tayyiba
from Oxford to Brunei,
Muhammad Afifi al-Akiti
16th Jumâdâ' II 1426
23rd July 2005



Select Bibliography:

Ba'alawî, Abd al-Rahmân. Bughyat al-Mustarshidîn fi Talkhis Fatawa ba'd al-Muta'akhkhirîn. Bulaq, 1309 H.

al-Bakri. Hâshiyat I'ânat al-Tâlibîn. 4 vols. Bulaq, 1300 H.

al-Ghazâlî. Ihyâ' 'Ulum al-Dîn. Edited by Badawî Ahmad Tabânah. 4 vols.
Cairo: Dâr Ihyâ' al-Kutub al-'Arabiyya, 1957.

Ibn 'Arabî, Qâdî. Ahkâm al-Qur'ân. Edited by 'Alî Muhammad al-Bajawî. 4 vols. Cairo: Dâr Ihyâ' al-Kutub al-'Arabiyya, 1957-8.

Ibn Barakât. Fayd al-Ilâh al-Mâlik fi Hall Alfâz 'Umdat al-Sâlik wa-'Uddat al-Nâsik. Edited by Mustafâ Muhammad 'Imâra. 2 vols. Singapore: al-Haramayn, 1371 H.

Ibn Hajar al-Haytamî. Tuhfa al-Muhtâj bi-Sharh al-Minhâj al-Nawawî in Hawâshî al-Shirwanî wa-Ibn Qâsim 'alâ Tuhfa al-Muhtâj. Edited by Muhammad 'Abd al-'Aziz al-Khâlidî. 13 vols. Beirut: Dâr al-Kutub al-'Ilmiyya, 1996.

al-Jassâs, Ahkâm al-Qur'ân. 3 vols. Istanbul: Dâr al-Khilâfa al-'Âliya, 1335-1338.

al-Kurdi. Fatâwa al-Kurdi al-Madanî. In Qurrat al-'Ayn bi-Fatâwâ 'Ulamâ' al-Haramayn. Edited by Muhammad 'Alî b. Hussayn al-Mâlikî. Bogor: Maktaba 'Arafât, n.d.

al-Nawawî. al-Majmu' Sharh al-Muhadhdhab. Edited by Mahmûd Matrajî. 22 vols. Beirut: Dâr al-Fikr, 1996.

al-Nawawî al-Jâwî. Marâh Labîd Tafsîr al-Nawawî: al-Tafsîr al-Munîr li-Ma'âlim al-Tanzîl al-Mufassir 'an Wujûh Mahâsin al-Ta'wîl al-Musammâ Marâh Labîd li-Kashf Ma'nâ Qur'an Majîd. 2 vols. Bulaq, 1305 H.

Anecdotes from history showing negative aspects/atrocity on part of the demonized religion/group are used to generalize the entire religion/group. The perpatrators of this pay no attention to the full historical record, the positive history that most certainly forms the bulk of the record. Dismissal of a large group of modern historians who purport an objective view in favor of a much smaller group of polemicists with an stark agenda occurs.

The willful ignoring of the vast majority of leaders and regular folk of the religion/group and the complete elevation of the few radicals as sole authorities on the subject.

http://www.unc.edu/~kurzman/terror.htm

Mustafa Mashhur, General Guide, Muslim Brotherhood, Egypt; Qazi Hussain Ahmed, Ameer, Jamaat-e-Islami Pakistan, Pakistan; Muti Rahman Nizami, Ameer, Jamaat-e-Islami Bangladesh, Bangladesh; Shaykh Ahmad Yassin, Founder, Islamic Resistance Movement (Hamas), Palestine; Rashid Ghannoushi, President, Nahda Renaissance Movement, Tunisia; Fazil Nour, President, PAS - Parti Islam SeMalaysia, Malaysia; and 40 other Muslim scholars and politicians:
“The undersigned, leaders of Islamic movements, are horrified by the events of Tuesday 11 September 2001 in the United States which resulted in massive killing, destruction and attack on innocent lives. We express our deepest sympathies and sorrow. We condemn, in the strongest terms, the incidents, which are against all human and Islamic norms. This is grounded in the Noble Laws of Islam which forbid all forms of attacks on innocents. God Almighty says in the Holy Qur'an: 'No bearer of burdens can bear the burden of another' (Surah al-Isra 17:15).”
MSANews, September 14, 2001, http://msanews.mynet.net/MSANEWS/200109/20010917.15.html;
Arabic original in al-Quds al-Arabi (London), September 14, 2001, p. 2, http://www.alquds.co.uk/Alquds/2001/09Sep/14%20Sep%20Fri/Quds02.pdf

Shaykh Yusuf Qaradawi, Qatar; Tariq Bishri, Egypt; Muhammad S. Awwa, Egypt; Fahmi Huwaydi, Egypt; Haytham Khayyat, Syria; Shaykh Taha Jabir al-Alwani, U.S.:
“All Muslims ought to be united against all those who terrorize the innocents, and those who permit the killing of non-combatants without a justifiable reason. Islam has declared the spilling of blood and the destruction of property as absolute prohibitions until the Day of Judgment. ... [It is] necessary to apprehend the true perpetrators of these crimes, as well as those who aid and abet them through incitement, financing or other support. They must be brought to justice in an impartial court of law and [punished] appropriately. ... [It is] a duty of Muslims to participate in this effort with all possible means.”
Statement of September 27, 2001. The Washington Post, October 11, 2001, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A40545-2001Oct10.html
Full text of this fatwa in English and Arabic.

Shaykh Muhammed Sayyid al-Tantawi, imam of al-Azhar mosque in Cairo, Egypt:
“Attacking innocent people is not courageous, it is stupid and will be punished on the day of judgement. ... It’s not courageous to attack innocent children, women and civilians. It is courageous to protect freedom, it is courageous to defend oneself and not to attack.”
Agence France Presse, September 14, 2001

Abdel-Mo'tei Bayyoumi, al-Azhar Islamic Research Academy, Cairo, Egypt:
“There is no terrorism or a threat to civilians in jihad [religious struggle].”
Al-Ahram Weekly Online, 20 - 26 September 2001, http://www.ahram.org.eg/weekly/2001/552/p4fall3.htm

Muslim Brotherhood, an opposition Islamist group in Egypt, said it was “horrified” by the attack and expressed “condolences and sadness”:
“[We] strongly condemn such activities that are against all humanist and Islamic morals. ... [We] condemn and oppose all aggression on human life, freedom and dignity anywhere in the world.”
Al-Ahram Weekly Online, 13 - 19 September 2001, http://www.ahram.org.eg/weekly/2001/551/fo2.htm

Shaykh Muhammad Hussein Fadlallah, spiritual guide of Shi‘i Muslim radicals in Lebanon, said he was “horrified” by these “barbaric ... crimes”:
“Beside the fact that they are forbidden by Islam, these acts do not serve those who carried them out but their victims, who will reap the sympathy of the whole world. ... Islamists who live according to the human values of Islam could not commit such crimes.”
Agence France Presse, September 14, 2001

‘Abdulaziz bin ‘Abdallah Al-Ashaykh, chief mufti of Saudi Arabia:
“Firstly: the recent developments in the United States including hijacking planes, terrorizing innocent people and shedding blood, constitute a form of injustice that cannot be tolerated by Islam, which views them as gross crimes and sinful acts. Secondly: any Muslim who is aware of the teachings of his religion and who adheres to the directives of the Holy Qur'an and the sunnah (the teachings of the Prophet Muhammad) will never involve himself in such acts, because they will invoke the anger of God Almighty and lead to harm and corruption on earth.”
Statement of September 15, 2001, http://saudiembassy.net/press_release/01-spa/09-15-Islam.htm

‘Abdulaziz bin ‘Abdallah Al-Ashaykh, chief mufti of Saudi Arabia:
"You must know Islam’s firm position against all these terrible crimes. The world must know that Islam is a religion of peace and mercy and goodness; it is a religion of justice and guidance…Islam has forbidden violence in all its forms. It forbids the hijacking airplanes, ships and other means of transport, and it forbids all acts that undermine the security of the innocent."
Hajj sermon of February 2, 2004, in "Public Statements by Senior Saudi Officials Condemning Extremism and Promoting Moderation," May 2004, http://www.saudiembassy.net/ReportLink/Report_Extremism_May04.pdf, page 10

Shaikh Saleh Al-Luheidan, Chairman of the Supreme Judicial Council, Saudi Arabia:
"As a human community we must be vigilant and careful to oppose these pernicious and shameless evils, which are not justified by any sane logic, nor by the religion of Islam."
Statement of September 14, 2001, in "Public Statements by Senior Saudi Officials Condemning Extremism and Promoting Moderation," May 2004, http://www.saudiembassy.net/ReportLink/Report_Extremism_May04.pdf, page 6

Shaikh Saleh Al-Luheidan, Chairman of the Supreme Judicial Council, Saudi Arabia:
"And I repeat once again: that this act that the United states was afflicted with, with this vulgarity and barbarism, and which is even more barbaric than terrorist acts, I say that these acts are from the depths of depravity and the worst of evils."
Televised statement of September 2001, in Muhammad ibn Hussin Al-Qahtani, editor, The Position of Saudi Muslim Scholars Regarding Terrorism in the Name of Islam (Saudi Arabia, 2004), pages 27-28.

Shaykh Muhammad bin ‘Abdallah al-Sabil, member of the Council of Senior Religious Scholars, Saudi Arabia:
“Any attack on innocent people is unlawful and contrary to shari'a (Islamic law). ... Muslims must safeguard the lives, honor and property of Christians and Jews. Attacking them contradicts shari'a.”
Agence France Presse, December 4, 2001

Council of Saudi ‘Ulama', fatwa of February 2003:
"What is happening in some countries from the shedding of the innocent blood and the bombing of buildings and ships and the destruction of public and private installations is a criminal act against Islam. ... Those who carry out such acts have the deviant beliefs and misleading ideologies and are responsible for the crime. Islam and Muslims should not be held responsible for such actions."
The Dawn newspaper, Karachi, Pakistan, February 8, 2003, http://www.dawn.com/2003/02/08/top17.htm; also in "Public Statements by Senior Saudi Officials Condemning Extremism and Promoting Moderation," May 2004, http://www.saudiembassy.net/ReportLink/Report_Extremism_May04.pdf, page 10

Shaykh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, chairman of the Sunna and Sira Council, Qatar:
"Our hearts bleed for the attacks that has targeted the World Trade Center [WTC], as well as other institutions in the United States despite our strong oppositions to the American biased policy towards Israel on the military, political and economic fronts. Islam, the religion of tolerance, holds the human soul in high esteem, and considers the attack against innocent human beings a grave sin, this is backed by the Qur’anic verse which reads: ‘Who so ever kills a human being [as punishment] for [crimes] other than manslaughter or [sowing] corruption in the earth, it shall be as if he has killed all mankind, and who so ever saves the life of one, it shall be as if he had saved the life of all mankind’ (Al-Ma’idah:32)."
Statement of September 13, 2001. http://www.islamonline.net/English/News/2001-09/13/article25.shtml. Arabic original at http://www.qaradawi.net/site/topics/article.asp?cu_no=2&item_no=1665&version=1&template_id=130&parent_id=17

Tahirul Qadri, head of the Awami Tehrik Party, Pakistan:
"Bombing embassies or destroying non-military installations like the World Trade Center is no jihad. ... "[T]hose who launched the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks not only killed thousands of innocent people in the United States but also put the lives of millions of Muslims across the world at risk. ... Bin Laden is not a prophet that we should put thousands of lives at risk for."
United Press International, October 18, 2001, http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/10/17/195606.shtml

Ayatollah Ali Khamene’i, supreme jurist-ruler of Iran:
“Killing of people, in any place and with any kind of weapons, including atomic bombs, long-range missiles, biological or chemical weopons, passenger or war planes, carried out by any organization, country or individuals is condemned. ... It makes no difference whether such massacres happen in Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Qana, Sabra, Shatila, Deir Yassin, Bosnia, Kosovo, Iraq or in New York and Washington.”
Islamic Republic News Agency, September 16, 2001, http://www.irna.com/en/hphoto/010916000000.ehp.shtml

President Muhammad Khatami of Iran:
“[T]he September 11 terrorist blasts in America can only be the job of a group that have voluntarily severed their own ears and tongues, so that the only language with which they could communicate would be destroying and spreading death.”
Address to the United Nations General Assembly, November 9, 2001, http://www.president.ir/cronicnews/1380/8008/800818/800818.htm#b3

League of Arab States:
“The General-Secretariat of the League of Arab States shares with the people and government of the United States of America the feelings of revulsion, horror and shock over the terrorist attacks that ripped through the World Trade Centre and Pentagon, inflicting heavy damage and killing and wounding thousands of many nationalities. These terrorist crimes have been viewed by the League as inadmissible and deserving all condemnation. Divergence of views between the Arabs and the United States over the latter’s foreign policy on the Middle East crisis does in no way adversely affect the common Arab attitude of compassion with the people and government of the United States at such moments of facing the menace and ruthlessness of international terrorism. In more than one statement released since the horrendous attacks, the League has also expressed deep sympathy with the families of the victims. In remarks to newsmen immediately following the tragic events, Arab League Secretary-General Amre Moussa described the feelings of the Arab world as demonstrably sympathetic with the American people, particularly with families and individuals who lost their loved ones. “It is indeed tormenting that any country or people or city anywhere in the world be the scene of such disastrous attacks,” he added. While convinced that it is both inconceivable and lamentable that such a large-scale, organised terrorist campaign take place anywhere, anytime, the League believes that the dreadful attacks against WTC and the Pentagon unveil, time and again, that the cancer of terrorism can be extensively damaging if left unchecked. It follows that there is a pressing and urgent need to combat world terrorism. In this context, an earlier call by [Egyptian] President Hosni Mubarak for convening an international conference to draw up universal accord on ways and means to eradicate this phenomenon and demonstrate international solidarity is worthy of active consideration. The Arabs have walked a large distancein the fight against cross-border terrorism by concluding in April 1998 the Arab Agreement on Combating Terrorism.”
September 17, 2001, http://www.leagueofarabstates.org/E_Perspectives_17_09_01.asp

Dr. Abdelouahed Belkeziz, Secretary-General of the Organization of the Islamic Conference:
“Following the bloody attacks against major buildings and installations in the United States yesterday, Tuesday, September 11, 2001, Dr. Abdelouahed Belkeziz, secretary-general of the 57-nation Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), stated that he was shocked and deeply saddened when he heard of those attacks which led to the death and injury of a very large number of innocent American citizens. Dr. Belkeziz said he was denouncing and condemning those criminal and brutal acts that ran counter to all covenants, humanitarian values and divine religions foremost among which was Islam.”
Press Release, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, September 12, 2001, http://www.oic-oci.org/press/english/september%202001/america%20on%20attack.htm

Organization of the Islamic Conference of Foreign Ministers:
“The Conference strongly condemned the brutal terror acts that befell the United States, caused huge losses in human lives from various nationalities and wreaked tremendous destruction and damage in New York and Washington. It further reaffirmed that these terror acts ran counter to the teachings of the divine religions as well as ethical and human values, stressed the necessity of tracking down the perpetrators of these acts in the light of the results of investigations and bringing them to justice to inflict on them the penalty they deserve, and underscored its support of this effort. In this respect, the Conference expressed its condolences to and sympathy with the people and government of the United States and the families of the victims in these mournful and tragic circumstances.”
Final Communique of the Ninth Extraordinary Session of the Islamic Conference of Foreign Ministers, October 10, 2001, http://www.oic-oci.org/english/fm/All%20Download/frmex9.htm

Organization of the Islamic Conference, Summit Conference:
"We are determined to fight terrorism in all its forms. ... Islam is the religion of moderation. It rejects extremism and isolation. There is a need to confront deviant ideology where it appears, including in school curricula. Islam is the religion of diversity and tolerance."
Daily Star (Beirut, Lebanon), December 9, 2005, http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?edition_id=10&categ_id=2&article_id=20641

Mehmet Nuri Yilmaz, Head of the Directorate of Religious Affairs of Turkey:
“Any human being, regardless of his ethnic and religious origin, will never think of carrying out such a violent, evil attack. Whatever its purpose is, this action cannot be justified and tolerated.”
Mehmet Nuri Yilmaz, “A Message on Ragaib Night and Terrorism,” September 21, 2001, http://www.diyanet.gov.tr/duyurular/regaibing.htm

Harun Yahya (Adnan Oktar), Turkish author:
“Islam does not encourage any kind of terrorism; in fact, it denounces it. Those who use terrorism in the name of Islam, in fact, have no other faculty except ignorance and hatred.”
Harun Yahya, “Islam Denounces Terrorism,” http://www.islamdenouncesterrorism.com

Shaikh Muhammad Yusuf Islahi, Pakistani-American Muslim leader:
“The sudden barbaric attack on innocent citizens living in peace is extremely distressing and deplorable. Every gentle human heart goes out to the victims of this attack and as humans we are ashamed at the barbarism perpetrated by a few people. Islam, which is a religion of peace and tolerance, condemns this act and sees this is as a wounding scar on the face of humanity. I appeal to Muslims to strongly condemn this act, express unity with the victims' relatives, donate blood, money and do whatever it takes to help the affected people.”
“Messages From Shaikh Muhammad Yusuf Islahi,” http://www.icna.org/wtc_islahi.htm

Abdal-Hakim Murad, British Muslim author:
“Targeting civilians is a negation of every possible school of Sunni Islam. Suicide bombing is so foreign to the Quranic ethos that the Prophet Samson is entirely absent from our scriptures.”
“The Hijackers Were Not Muslims After All: Recapturing Islam From the Terrorists,” http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/masud/ISLAM/ahm/recapturing.htm

Syed Mumtaz Ali, President of the Canadian Society of Muslims:
“We condemn in the strongest terms possible what are apparently vicious and cowardly acts of terrorism against innocent civilians. We join with all Canadians in calling for the swift apprehension and punishment of the perpetrators. No political cause could ever be assisted by such immoral acts.”
Canadian Society of Muslims, Media Release, September 12, 2001, http://muslim-canada.org/news09112001.html

15 American Muslim organizations:
“We reiterate our unequivocal condemnation of the crime committed on September 11, 2001 and join our fellow Americans in mourning the loss of up to 6000 innocent civilians.”
Muslim American Society (MAS), Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA), Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR), Muslim Alliance of North America (MANA), Muslim Student Association (MSA), Islamic Association for Palestine (IAP), United Association for Studies and Research (UASR), Solidarity International, American Muslims for Global Peace and Justice (AMGPJ), American Muslim Alliance (AMA), United Muslim Americans Association (UMAA), Islamic Media Foundation (IMF), American Muslim Foundation (AMF), Coordinating Council of Muslim Organizations (CCMO), American Muslims for Jerusalem (AMJ), Muslim Arab Youth Association (MAYA), October 22, 2001, http://www.icna.org/wtc_pr.htm

57 leaders of North American Islamic organizations, 77 intellectuals, and dozens of concerned citizens:
“As American Muslims and scholars of Islam, we wish to restate our conviction that peace and justice constitute the basic principles of the Muslim faith. We wish again to state unequivocally that neither the al-Qaeda organization nor Usama bin Laden represents Islam or reflects Muslim beliefs and practice. Rather, groups like al-Qaeda have misused and abused Islam in order to fit their own radical and indeed anti-Islamic agenda. Usama bin Laden and al-Qaeda's actions are criminal, misguided and counter to the true teachings of Islam.”
Statement Rejecting Terrorism, September 9, 2002, http://www.islam-democracy.org/terrorism_statement.asp

American Muslim Political Coordination Council:
“American Muslims utterly condemn what are apparently vicious and cowardly acts of terrorism against innocent civilians. We join with all Americans in calling for the swift apprehension and punishment of the perpetrators. No political cause could ever be assisted by such immoral acts.”
http://capwiz.com/cair/issues/alert/?alertid=49818&type=CU&azip=

Dr. Agha Saeed, National Chair of the American Muslim Alliance:
“These attacks are against both divine and human laws and we condemn them in the strongest terms. The Muslim Americans join the nation in calling for swift apprehension and stiff punishment of the perpetrators, and offer our sympathies to the victims and their families.”
http://www.amaweb.org/AMA%20Condemns.html

Hamza Yusuf, American Muslim leader:
“Religious zealots of any creed are defeated people who lash out in desperation, and they often do horrific things. And if these people [who committed murder on September 11] indeed are Arabs, Muslims, they're obviously very sick people and I can't even look at it in religious terms. It's politics, tragic politics. There's no Islamic justification for any of it. ... You can't kill innocent people. There's no Islamic declaration of war against the United States. I think every Muslim country except Afghanistan has an embassy in this country. And in Islam, a country where you have embassies is not considered a belligerent country. In Islam, the only wars that are permitted are between armies and they should engage on battlefields and engage nobly. The Prophet Muhammad said, ``Do not kill women or children or non-combatants and do not kill old people or religious people,'' and he mentioned priests, nuns and rabbis. And he said, ``Do not cut down fruit-bearing trees and do not poison the wells of your enemies.'' The Hadith, the sayings of the Prophet, say that no one can punish with fire except the lord of fire. It's prohibited to burn anyone in Islam as a punishment. No one can grant these attackers any legitimacy. It was evil.”
San Jose Mercury News, September 15, 2001, http://www0.mercurycenter.com/local/center/isl0916.htm

Nuh Ha Mim Keller, American Muslim author:
“Muslims have nothing to be ashamed of, and nothing to hide, and should simply tell people what their scholars and religious leaders have always said: first, that the Wahhabi sect has nothing to do with orthodox Islam, for its lack of tolerance is a perversion of traditional values; and second, that killing civilians is wrong and immoral.”
“Making the World Safe for Terrorism,” September 30, 2001, http://66.34.131.5/ISLAM/nuh/terrorism.htm

Yusuf Islam (formerly Cat Stevens), prominent British Muslim:
"I wish to express my heartfelt horror at the indiscriminate terrorist attacks committed against innocent people of the United States yesterday. While it is still not clear who carried out the attack, it must be stated that no right thinking follower of Islam could possibly condone such an action: the Qur'an equates the murder of one innocent person with the murder of the whole of humanity. We pray for the families of all those who lost their lives in this unthinkable act of violence as well as all those injured; I hope to reflect the feelings of all Muslims and people around the world whose sympathies go out to the victims at this sorrowful moment."
[On singing an a cappella version of "Peace Train" for the Concert for New York City:] "After the tragedy, my heart was heavy with sadness and shock, and I was determined to help in some way. Organizers asked me to take part in a message for tolerance and sing 'Peace Train.' Of course, I agreed. ... As a Muslim from the West, it is important to me to let people know that these acts of mass murder have nothing to do with Islam and the beliefs of Muslims."
Press release of September 13, 2001, and PR Newswire, October 22, 2001, both at http://www.mountainoflight.co.uk/pages/news/2001.html

Muslims Against Terrorism, a U.S.-based organization:
“As Muslims, we condemn terrorism in all its forms and manifestations. Ours is a religion of peace. We are sick and tired of extremists dictating the public face of Islam.”
http://www.muslimsagainstterrorism.org/aboutus.html. This statement has been replaced by a new statement in favor of peace by the group's successor organization, Muslim Voices for Peace, http://www.mvp-us.org.

Abdulaziz Sachedina, professor of religious studies, University of Virginia:
“New York was grieving. Sorrow covered the horizons. The pain of separation and of missing family members, neighbors, citizens, humans could be felt in every corner of the country. That day was my personal day of “jihad” (“struggle”) - jihad with my pride and my identity as a Muslim. This is the true meaning of jihad – “struggle with one’s own ego and false pride.” I don’t ever recall that I had prayed so earnestly to God to spare attribution of such madness that was unleashed upon New York and Washington to the Muslims. I felt the pain and, perhaps for the first time in my entire life, I felt embarrassed at the thought that it could very well be my fellow Muslims who had committed this horrendous act of terrorism. How could these terrorists invoke God’s mercifulness and compassion when they had, through their evil act, put to shame the entire history of this great religion and its culture of toleration?”
“Where Was God on September 11?," http://www.virginia.edu/~soasia/newsletter/Fall01/God.html

Ali Khan, professor of law, Washburn University School of Law:
“To the most learned in the text of the Quran, these verses must be read in the context of many other verses that stipulate the Islamic law of war---a war that the Islamic leader must declare after due consultation with advisers. For the less learned, however, these verses may provide the motivation and even the plot for a merciless strike against a self-chosen enemy.”
“Attack on America: An Islamic Perspective, September 17, 2001, http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/forum/forumnew29.htm

Muqtedar Khan, assistant professor of political science, Adrian College, Michigan, USA:
“What happened on September 11th in New York and Washington DC will forever remain a horrible scar on the history of Islam and humanity. No matter how much we condemn it, and point to the Quran and the Sunnah to argue that Islam forbids the killing of innocent people, the fact remains that the perpetrators of this crime against humanity have indicated that their actions are sanctioned by Islamic values. The fact that even now several Muslim scholars and thousands of Muslims defend the accused is indicative that not all Muslims believe that the attacks are unIslamic. This is truly sad. ... If anywhere in your hearts there is any sympathy or understanding with those who committed this act, I invite you to ask yourself this question, would Muhammad (pbuh) sanction such an act? While encouraging Muslims to struggle against injustice (Al Quran 4:135), Allah also imposes strict rules of engagement. He says in unequivocal terms that to kill an innocent being is like killing entire humanity (Al Quran 5:32). He also encourages Muslims to forgive Jews and Christians if they have committed injustices against us (Al Quran 2:109, 3:159, 5:85).”
“Memo to American Muslims,” October 5, 2001, http://www.ijtihad.org/memo.htm

Dr. Alaa Al-Yousuf, Bahraini economist and political activist:
“On Friday, 14 September [the first Friday prayers after 11 September], almost the whole world expressed its condemnation of the crime and its grief for the bereaved families of the victims. Those who abstained or, even worse, rejoiced, will have joined the terrorists, not in the murder, but in adding to the incalculable damage on the other victims of the atrocity, namely, Islam as a faith, Muslims and Arabs as peoples, and possibly the Palestinian cause. The terrorists and their apologists managed to sully Islam as a faith both in the eyes of many Muslims and non-Muslims alike.”
Interview with the International Forum for Islamic Dialogue, London, http://www.islam21.net/pages/keyissues/key7-6.htm

Dr. S. Parvez Manzoor, Swedish-based Muslim author:
“If these acts of terror indeed have been perpetrated by Muslim radicals or fundamentalists, they have reaped nothing but eternal damnation, shame and ignominy. For nothing, absolutely nothing, could remotely be advanced as an excuse for these barbaric acts. They represent a total negation of Islamic values, an utter disregard of our fiqhi tradition, and a slap in the face of the Ummah. They are in total contrast to what Islamic reason, compassion and faith stand for. Even from the more mundane criteria of common good, the maslaha of the jurists, these acts are treasonous and suicidal. Islamic faith has been so callously and casually sacrificed at the altar of politics, a home-grown politics of parochial causes, primeval passions, self-endorsing piety and messianic terror.”
Interview with the International Forum for Islamic Dialogue, London, http://www.islam21.net/pages/keyissues/key7-6.htm

Anwar Ibrahim, Malaysian Islamic activist and former deputy prime minister:
“Never in Islam's entire history has the action of so few of its followers caused the religion and its community of believers to be such an abomination in the eyes of others. Millions of Muslims who fled to North America and Europe to escape poverty and persecution at home have become the object of hatred and are now profiled as potential terrorists. And the nascent democratic movements in Muslim countries will regress for a few decades as ruling autocrats use their participation in the global war against terrorism to terrorize their critics and dissenters. This is what Mohammed Atta and his fellow terrorists and sponsors have done to Islam and its community worldwide by their murder of innocents at the World Trade Center in New York and the Defense Depart-ment in Washington. The attack must be condemned, and the condemnation must be without reservation.”
Anwar Ibrahim, “Growth of Democracy Is the Answer to Terrorism,” International Herald Tribune, October 11, 2001, http://www.iht.com/articles/35281.htm

Ziauddin Sardar, British Muslim author:
“The failure of Islamic movements is their inability to come to terms with modernity, to give modernity a sustainable home-grown expression. Instead of engaging with the abundant problems that bedevil Muslim lives, the Islamic prescription consists of blind following of narrow pieties and slavish submission to inept obscurantists. Instead of engagement with the wider world, they have made Islam into an ethic of separation, separate under-development, and negation of the rest of the world.”
Ziauddin Sardar, “Islam has become its own enemy,” The Observer, October 21, 2001, http://www.observer.co.uk/waronterrorism/story/0,1373,577942,00.html

Khaled Abou El Fadl, Kuwaiti-Egyptian-American legal scholar:
“It would be disingenuous to deny that the Qur'an and other Islamic sources offer possibilities of intolerant interpretation. Clearly these possibilities are exploited by the contemporary puritans and supremacists. But the text does not command such intolerant readings. Historically, Islamic civilization has displayed a remarkable ability to recognize possibilities of tolerance, and to act upon these possibilities.”
Khaled Abou El Fadl, “The Place of Tolerance in Islam: On Reading the Qur'an -- and Misreading It,” Boston Review, December 2001/January 2002, http://bostonreview.mit.edu/BR26.6/elfadl.html

Sheikh Muhammad Ali Al-Hanooti, Palestinian-American mufti and member of the North American Fiqh Council:
“The people who attacked the WTC and Pentagon and hijacked the forth plane that crashed in Pennsylvania are criminal who deserve the severest punishment as the Quran elaborates. They are murderers and terrorists. If there were any person who felt happy for that incident we would not be able to equate them with those criminals, but we can say no one with faith and ethics would accept anything of that murder and targeting of innocent people.”
Sheikh Muhammad Ali Al-Hanooti, "Fatwa Session on Latest Tragic Events," IslamOnline, September 20, 2001, http://www.islamonline.net/livefatwa/english/Browse.asp?hGuestID=pdwD2E

Syed Shahabuddin, Indian Muslim author:
“Islam prohibits terrorism as well as suicide. Jihad is neither and has no place for taking innocent lives or one’s own life. No cause, howsoever noble or just, can justify terrorism. So while one may sympathize with the legitimate aspirations of the Palestinian people and support their claim to a state of their own, while one may appreciate the democratic awakening among the people of many Muslim states and uphold their demand for withdrawal of foreign presence from their soil and support their struggle for revision of the terms of trade for their natural resources, no thinking Muslim can go along with the use of terrorism for securing political goals.”
Syed Shahabuddin, "Global war against terrorism – the Islamic dimension," Milli Gazette newspaper, New Delhi, India, November 1, 2001, http://www.milligazette.com/Archives/01112001/34.htm

Dr. M. A. Zaki Badawi, principal of the Muslim College, London, England:
“Neither the law of Islam nor its ethical system justify such a crime.”
Dr. M. A. Zaki Badawi, "Terrorism has no place in Islam," Arab News, Jiddah-Riyadh-Dhahran, Saudi Arabia, September 28, 2001, http://www.arabnews.com/?page=5&section=0&article=9314&d=28&m=9&y=2001

Mufti Nizamuddin Shamzai, head mufti at Jamiat-ul-Uloom-ul-Islamia seminary, Binori Town, Pakistan and a leader of the Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam (JUI) party, Pakistan:
“It's wrong to kill innocent people. ... It's also wrong to praise those who kill innocent people.”
The New York Times, September 28, 2001, p. B3

Shaykh Omar Bakri, leader of al-Muhajirun, a radical Islamist movement based in London, England:
“If Islamists did it -- and most likely it is Islamists, because of the nature of what happened -- then they have fully misunderstood the teachings of Islam. ... Even the most radical of us have condemned this. I am always considered to be a radical in the Islamic world and even I condemn it.”
The Gazette (Montreal, Quebec, Canada), September 13, 2001, p. B6

Zuhair Qudah, a preacher at al-Lawzieen mosque, Amman, Jordan:
"We stand by our Palestinian brothers in their struggle to end the occupation, but we don't condone violence, ugly crimes and the killing of innocent people."
Associated Press, September 14, 2001
Salih bin Muhammad Lahidan, chairman of the Supreme Judicial Council, Saudi Arabia:
“Killing the weak, infants, women, and the elderly, and destroying property, are considered serious crimes in Islam. . . . Viewing on the TV networks what happened to the twin towers . . . was like watching doomsday. Those who commit such crimes are the worst of people. Anyone who thinks that any Islamic scholar will condone such acts is totally wrong. . . . This barbaric act is not justified by any sane mind-set. . . . This act is pernicious and shameless and evil in the extreme.”
The Washington Post, October 13, 2001, p. B9

Shaykh Rached Ghannouchi, chairman of Tunisia's an-Nahda Movement, in exile in London, England:
“Such destruction can only be condemned by any Muslim, however resentful one may be of America's biased policies supporting occupation in Palestine, as an unacceptable attack on thousands of innocent people having no relation to American policies. Anyone familiar with Islam has no doubt about its rejection of collective punishment, based on the well-known Quranic principle that 'no bearer of burdens can bear the burden of another.'”
The Washington Post, October 13, 2001, p. B9

Shaykh Salih al-Suhaymi, religious scholar, Saudi Arabia:
“Based upon what has preceded, then we say that that which we believe and hold as our religion concerning what happened to the World Trade Centre in America – and in Allaah lies success – that the terrorist attacks that took place and what occurred of general (mass) killing, then it is not permissible and Islaam does not allow it in any form whatsoever.”
"Shaykh Saalih as-Suhaymee speaks about current affairs...," October 18, 2001, translated by Abu 'Iyaad, http://www.fatwaonline.com/news/0011018.htm

Dr. Sayed G. Safavi, Iranian religious scholar and director of the Institute of Islamic Studies, London, England:
“The targeting of innocent persons cannot be allowed. Islam is against any form of terrorism, whether it be carried out by an individual, a group or a state. ... For Muslims to kill civilians unconnected with any attack on them is a crime. The principal law of Islam is: don't attack civilians. This includes civilians of any faith, whether Jewish, Muslim or Christian. According to Islam, all people are the family of God. The target of religion is peace.”
Letter to the Editor, The Daily Telegraph, London, England, June 30, 2003, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2003/06/30/dt3001.xml

Iqbal Siddiqui, editor of Crescent International, London, England:
“History also teaches us that the only effective way of challenging oppression and the only effective way of fighting injustice is through force; that is simply the way of the world. Pacifism is all too often a weapon of the status quo.... When Islamic movements in the world do need to resort to the use of force, that force must be used morally. When extreme fringes of those movements are pushed to use force indiscriminately, immorally, wrongly against illegitimate targets, and using illegitimate weapons (such [as] hijacked jumbo jets), those are crimes for which the people who share their cause, who share their view of the world, their understanding of the need to use force, must also criticise them, turn against them, isolate them. Our standards must be higher than those of the people whom we are fighting, because if we descend to their standards then there is no difference between us.”
Iqbal Siddiqui, "Terrorism and political violence in contemporary history," Conference on Terrorism, Institute of Islamic Studies, London, England, November 13, 2001, published in Muslimedia International, February 16-28, 2002, http://www.muslimedia.com/archives/movement02/terror-hist.htm. Earlier version on-line at http://www.islamic-studies.org/terrorconfer.pro.htm

Islamway website:
"In light of these and other Islamic texts, the act of inciting terror in the hearts of defenseless civilians, the wholesale destruction of buildings and properties, the bombing and maiming of innocent men, women, and children are all forbidden and detestable acts according to Islam and the Muslims."
"What Does Islam Say About Terrorism?" http://english.islamway.com/bindex.php?section=article&id=126

Islamic Commission of Spain:
"Muslims, therefore, are not only forbidden from committing crimes against innocent people, but are responsible before God to stop those people who have the intention to do so, since these people 'are planting the seeds of corruption on Earth'.... The perpetration of terrorist acts supposes a rupture of such magnitude with Islamic teaching that it allows to affirm that the individuals or groups who have perpetrated them have stopped being Muslim and have put themselves outside the sphere of Islam."
"Text of the Fatwa Declared Against Osama Bin Laden by the Islamic Commission of Spain," March 17, 2005, http://webislam.com/?idn=537; original Spanish version: "La Comisión Islámica de España emite una fatua condenando el terrorismo y al grupo Al Qaida," March 10, 2005, http://www.webislam.com/?idn=399.

Fatwa signed by more than 500 British Muslim scholars, clerics, and imams:
"Islam strictly, strongly and severely condemns the use of violence and the destruction of innocent lives. There is neither place nor justification in Islam for extremism, fanaticism or terrorism. Suicide bombings, which killed and injured innocent people in London, are HARAAM - vehemently prohibited in Islam, and those who committed these barbaric acts in London [on July 7, 2005] are criminals not martyrs. Such acts, as perpetrated in London, are crimes against all of humanity and contrary to the teachings of Islam. ... The Holy Quran declares: 'Whoever kills a human being… then it is as though he has killed all mankind; and whoever saves a human life, it is as though he had saved all mankind.' (Quran, Surah al-Maidah (5), verse 32) Islam’s position is clear and unequivocal: Murder of one soul is the murder of the whole of humanity; he who shows no respect for human life is an enemy of humanity."
British Muslim Forum, press release of July 18, 2005, http://www.britishmuslimforum.org/view_press_release.php?id=26.

Fiqh Council of North America, an association of 18 Muslim legal scholars, fatwa endorsed by the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), the Muslim American Society (MAS), the Association of Muslim Social Scientists (AMSS), the Association of Muslim Scientists and Engineers (AMSE), the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC), and more than 130 Muslim organizations, mosques and leaders in the United States:
"We have consistently condemned terrorism and extremism in all forms and under all circumstances, and we reiterate this unequivocal position. Islam strictly condemns religious extremism and the use of violence against innocent lives. There is no justification in Islam for extremism or terrorism. Targeting civilians' life and property through suicide bombings or any other method of attack is haram - prohibited in Islam - and those who commit these barbaric acts are criminals, not 'martyrs.'"
"Fatwa by U.S. Muslims Against Religious Extremism," July 25, 2005, http://www.mpac.org/bucket_downloads/fatwa-on-terrorism.pdf.

Islamic Society of North America, Anti-Terrrorism Anti-Extremism Committee:
"Humanity lives today in an interdependent and interconnected world where peaceful and fair interaction, including interfaith and intra-faith dialogue, is imperative. A grave threat to all of us nowadays is the scourge of religious and political extremism that manifests itself in various forms of violence, including terrorism. In the absence of a universally agreed upon definition of terrorism, it may be defined as any act of indiscriminate violence that targets innocent people, whether committed by individuals, groups or states. As Muslims, we must face up to our responsibility to clarify and advocate a faith-based, righteous and moral position with regard to this problem, especially when terrorist acts are perpetrated in the name of Islam. The purpose of this brochure is to clarify a few key issues relating to this topic, not because of external pressures or for the sake of “political correctness”, but out of our sincere conviction of what Islam stands for."
Islamic Society of North America, "Against Terrorism and Religious Extremism: Muslim Position and Responsibilities," 2005, http://www.balancedislam.org/ATAECbrochure.pdf.

Shaykh Abdulaziz Al-Asheikh, chief mufti of Saudi Arabia:
The London attacks, "targeting peaceful people, are not condoned by Islam, and are indeed prohibited by our religion. ... Attributing to Islam acts of individual or collective killings, bombings, destruction of properties and the terrorizing of peaceful people is unfair, because they are alien to the divine religion."
Fatwa-Online, July 9, 2005, http://www.fatwa-online.com/news/0050709.htm

Shaykh Muhammad ibn Abdul-Wahhaab al-'Aqeel, professor of creed ('aqeedah) at the College of Proselytising (da'wah), Islamic University of Madinah, Saudi Arabia:
"Terrorism is the terror that is caused by those groups or individuals who resort to killing and wreaking havoc and destruction. Terrorism is therefore, according to the contemporary compilers of modern Arabic dictionaries, killing akin to the riotous killing that is mentioned within the texts of Shar'eeah. As the Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wassallam) mentioned with regards to the signs of the end of time, the spread of 'al-Harj' (riotous killing). The meaning of 'al-Harj' is killing and the increase of the spilling blood, which is all from the signs of the end of time. To the extent that the one killing will not know why he is killing and the one that was killed will not know why he/she was killed. Islam is free from this riotous killing, free from this terrorism and free from this kind of corruption. Terrorism is established upon destruction of properties such as factories, farms, places of worship, train stations, airports and the likes; Islam is clearly free from such actions that are based upon corruption and not upon rectification. Terrorists usually say that they are going against the state in which they are based within. This is like the mafia or other criminal organisations that are based on killing people, causing fear and taking their monies. Such criminal organisations have leaders, deputies and individuals that are responsible for establishing regulations for the organisation and individuals responsible for carrying out attacks, and all of them are terrorists causing corruption on the earth. However the ugliest face of terrorism is that which is established in the name of religion, all of the religions from the Prophets (peace be upon them) are free from such terrorism, even if some of the followers of the Prophets participated in such terrorist activities, but the Prophets are free from such corruptions."
Lecture on "The Evils of Terrorism," August 20, 2005, translated in Islam Against Terrorism - v1.20, September 17, 2005, http://www.fatwa-online.com/downloads/dow004/islamagainstterrorism.chm

Shaykh Muhammad Afifi al-Akiti, Malaysian Muslim scholar and research fellow in Islamic philosophy and theology, Oxford Centre for Islamic Studies, U.K.:
"If you still insist that your [religious or civil] authority should declare war with the non-Muslim state upon which you wish war to be declared, then the most you could do in this capacity is to lobby your authority for it. However, if your anger is so unrestrained that its fire brings out the worst in you to the point that your disagreement with your Muslim authority leads you to declare war on those you want your authority to declare war on, and you end up resorting to violence, then know with certainty that you have violated our own religious Laws. For then you will have taken the Shari'a into your own hands."
Shaykh Muhammad Afifi al-Akiti, Defending the Transgressed by Censuring the Reckless against the Killing of Civilians, Germany: Warda Publications, and United Kingdom: Aqsa Press, 2005, p.49, http://www.warda.info/fatwa.pdf

Abd al-Hakim Murad, British Muslim scholar:
"This is a decadence that is profound. And that it happens in the holy land is particularly worrying. Near the muqadsāt, where we are particularly required to conform entirely to the adāb of the Shari’ah. This is a deep subversion. And as for those who think that for reasons of masfahah that the door can be opened there, but somehow that door will remain closed elsewhere in the world, that this door can be opened because the Palestinians are so oppressed and somehow it’s going to help them, but of course we keep it closed in Chechnya and Kahsmir and certainly in London, that logic doesn’t seem to have worked too well. That rage, that desire to self annihilation, to lash out and the men, women and children, whoever in the vicinity, is now becoming a global epidemic. And the ‘ulama who opened the little door now see these legions rushing through it in every place don’t know what to do about it. That door has to be closed. Islam is too good for such practices, for such baseness, for such wild expression of futility and despair and vindictiveness."
Interview, December 16-18, 2005, London-Leeds-Manchester, http://www.radicalmiddleway.co.uk/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=33&Itemid=45

See also:

Bernard Haykel, assistant professor of Islamic law at New York University:
"According to Islamic law there are at least six reasons why Bin Laden's barbaric violence cannot fall under the rubric of jihad: 1) Individuals and organizations cannot declare a jihad, only states can; 2) One cannot kill innocent women and children when conducting a jihad; 3) One cannot kill Muslims in a jihad; 4) One cannot fight a jihad against a country in which Muslims can freely practise their religion and proselytize Islam; 5) Prominent Muslim jurists around the world have condemned these attacks and their condemnation forms a juristic consensus (ijma') against Bin Laden's actions (This consensus renders his actions un-Islamic); 6) The welfare and interest of the Muslim community (maslaha) is being harmed by Bin Laden's actions and this equally makes them un-Islamic."
The Dawn newspaper, Karachi, Pakistan, October 8, 2001, http://www.dawn.com/2001/10/08/op.htm#2

My philosophy is simple: who are you gonna believe?

1) The overwhelming majority of Muslims, both leaders and people...

2) The extremists

[King Henry V]

Essentially ezrider, you have a situation similiar to that of 1930's Europe. A certain religion and by extension its followers are demonized.

Yeah, sorry I forgot I was a Nazi. Please ignore me.

[Reenk Roink]

Yeah, sorry I forgot I was a Nazi. Please ignore me.

I don't understand this knee-jerk reaction...

My statement was comparing the methodology of the fierce opposers of Judaism/Jews and Islam/Muslims. It usually wasn't intelligent criticism at all, rather inflammatory speech.

Compare with the "God Hates Fags!" group of Phelps or this guy (http://media.www.michigandaily.com/media/storage/paper851/news/2006/09/26/CampusLife/AntiGay.Speakers.Ignite.Volatile.Crowd.On.Diag-2308006.shtml?sourcedomain=www.michigandaily.com&MIIHost=media.collegepublisher.com), to one who intelligently (and politely/reasonably) expresses philosophical, theological, and biological arguments against it.

You may take my words as something else, but then the fault lies with the ears of the listener and not with the words of the speaker...

[yesdachi]

Holybandits comment was an incendiary statement, derived from his experieces of Islam. I did jump the gun and claim that Holybandit was influenced solely by the media, my bad. The Muslim clerics said the Pope was insulting Islam, Benny said he was simply quoting a 14th century Monarch and those views were not his own. What conclusions where the Muslims jumping to? That the Pope hates Islam, right? It seems to me that both yourself and Holybandit(sorry for repeated using your name) genuinely dislike Islam. Am I jumping to conclusions or would you say I was close to the mark?

The antiChristian comments, while sensationalised, aren't without a grain of truth. I was merely trying to put our fascination of the bad side of Islam into perspective. Christians have played nice for a while now(sort of- The Troubles in NI) and history has judged. How will it judge this period? probably more harshly because of the scale of exposure and that's unfair.
I have no particular dislike for “Islam” I am rather indifferent toward it much like I am with many other religions I don’t follow. I do however have a serious issue with the extremists who have hijacked the religion and want to kill me and with the self proclaimed peaceful Islamic group who doesn’t actively attempt to stop the extremists. If misrepresenting the religion as being violent (like the Pope has done) is a crime or insult then what is it that the extremists are doing by twisting their “peaceful” religion into the monster we see on TV? The peaceful “majority” should be trying as hard to curb the extremists as the people being targeted by the extremists. I don’t see it happening and that bothers me. If there are millions in this peaceful Islamic group that are opposed to the extremists then why don’t I hear about them catching the extremists that are hiding in their towns? We’ve only got a few thousand boots on the ground spread out around a half a dozen countries, they have MILLIONS, but we are the ones catching our “mutual” enemies.

[sharrukin]

Essentially ezrider, you have a situation similiar to that of 1930's Europe. A certain religion and by extension its followers are demonized.

Well, yes there are similarities but the comparison fits a lot closer to the Nazi model than the Jewish one. Any time someone complains, or criticizes the movement you have trouble in the street. The use of violence to silence their critics. Salmon Rushdie, dutch movie producers, etc. Remind you of anyone?



So why do peaceful Muslim communities exist if nothing has changed.
I think Muslims are perfectly capable of living side by side with other religions and HAVE DONE SO FOR CENTURIES.
If you think Islamists have a monopoly on intolerance and death you are sadly mistaken

So why did peaceful communities of Germans exist during the Nazi era? You seem to have this idea that a very dangerous movement will be detectable by the glowing red eyes of its adherents. Muslims are capable of living peacefully together with other religions when they are not in charge. When they are in charge and have the power, things get ugly.

Show me the Islamic nation that has had centuries of peaceful relations with their non-Islamic subjects. Show me the benevolence. Show me the tolerance. Show me a non aggressive approach to their neighbours.

Are there any Muslim nations where non-Islamic minorities haven't been persecuted?

Afghanistan
Albania
Algeria
Azerbaijan
Bahrain
Bangladesh
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Egypt
Indonesia
Iran
Iraq
Jordan
Kazakhstan
Kosovo
Kuwait
Kyrgyzstan
Lebanon
Libya
Mali
Mauritania
Morocco
Oman
Pakistan
Palestine
Qatar
Saudi Arabia
Somalia
Sudan
Syria
Tajikistan
Tunisia
Turkey
Turkmenistan
United Arab Emirates
Uzbekistan
Yemen

[Randarkmaan]

Are there any Muslim nations where non-Islamic minorities haven't been persecuted?

That is a bit of a stupid question I think...
If you look at it you will se that a question you should have asked yourselves is "Are there any nations in the world where religious (and ethnic and other) minorities have not been persecuted?". You will quickly realize that the answer to that question is... "no".

[Reenk Roink]

Show me the Islamic nation that has had centuries of peaceful relations with their non-Islamic subjects. Show me the benevolence. Show me the tolerance. Show me a non aggressive approach to their neighbours.

Are there any Muslim nations where non-Islamic minorities haven't been persecuted?

Afghanistan
Albania
Algeria
Azerbaijan
Bahrain
Bangladesh
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Egypt
Indonesia
Iran
Iraq
Jordan
Kazakhstan
Kosovo
Kuwait
Kyrgyzstan
Lebanon
Libya
Mali
Mauritania
Morocco
Oman
Pakistan
Palestine
Qatar
Saudi Arabia
Somalia
Sudan
Syria
Tajikistan
Tunisia
Turkey
Turkmenistan
United Arab Emirates
Uzbekistan
Yemen

What an argument... :rolleyes:

Hold on, I've got a better one:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Countries_of_the_world

Are there any Muslim nations where non-Islamic minorities haven't been persecuted?

:rolleyes:

Ask yourself this question: Until the modern age, in the last century or two, how many Muslims could live in "Christian" lands? Turn that question around: How many Christians could live in "Muslim" lands? :rolleyes:

Why is it that Islamic history is spoken of by historians as a period of "relative tolerance"? Not the level of tolerance that secular governments afford, but non-Muslims lived well, and sometimes thrived under Muslim rule throughout history. Can the same be said of the Christian world?

[sharrukin]

That is a bit of a stupid question I think...
If you look at it you will se that a question you should have asked yourselves is "Are there any nations in the world where religious (and ethnic and other) minorities have not been persecuted?". You will quickly realize that the answer to that question is... "no".

Muslims ARE living in France, Britain, Denmark, America, Canada, Argentina, Germany, Spain, Italy, the list goes on and on. They are NOT being persecuted and are able to build Mosques as they choose. This is not something that their co-religionists generally allow in Islamic nations.

Compare if you will the state of religion in other modern states. Britain, Russia, America, France, etc. Hindu temples, Muslim mosques, various Christian churches and Jewish synagogues are all present. In present day Israel, the Jewish state both respects and offers protection to the religious rights and practices of Christians, Muslims and Druze.

Muslim nations do not extend this same tolerance to non-Muslims.

"Are there any nations in the world where religious (and ethnic and other) minorities have not been persecuted?"

I stand corrected.

I should have said "aren't" instead of "haven't". Yes if you go back into history you will find examples of intolerance and persecution in every nation and community. That does not mean that there is a moral equivalence between all nations, philosophies, and belief systems.

[Randarkmaan]

Compare if you will the state of religion in other modern states. Britain, Russia, America, France, etc. Hindu temples, Muslim mosques, various Christian churches and Jewish synagogues are all present. In present day Israel, the Jewish state both respects and offers protection to the religious rights and practices of Christians, Muslims and Druze.

That may be true but if you ask me that has less to do with Islam than it has with how ****** up most of the Middle-East and Africa is at the moment. You also have pretty dodgy people in that region that aren't muslims, take for an example the Phalanges in Lebanon and the PLO also has a substantial christian minority in it's ranks.

[Pannonian]

I have no particular dislike for “Islam” I am rather indifferent toward it much like I am with many other religions I don’t follow. I do however have a serious issue with the extremists who have hijacked the religion and want to kill me and with the self proclaimed peaceful Islamic group who doesn’t actively attempt to stop the extremists. If misrepresenting the religion as being violent (like the Pope has done) is a crime or insult then what is it that the extremists are doing by twisting their “peaceful” religion into the monster we see on TV? The peaceful “majority” should be trying as hard to curb the extremists as the people being targeted by the extremists. I don’t see it happening and that bothers me. If there are millions in this peaceful Islamic group that are opposed to the extremists then why don’t I hear about them catching the extremists that are hiding in their towns? We’ve only got a few thousand boots on the ground spread out around a half a dozen countries, they have MILLIONS, but we are the ones catching our “mutual” enemies.
In Britain, at least, we are taking steps to correcting the homegrown situation.

The 1st generation Pakistani immigrants did not try to integrate themselves into the Anglophone community, as they felt they themselves did not matter, but are intensely Anglophilic. Many of their children turned out well, but there were some who felt alienated from both their host country, since they were brown, and their parents' culture, since their parents clung to the old ways while actively discouraging their children from following them.

Along comes a Muslim preacher who offers insights into their parents' culture (Islam) while speaking in their own language (English). Remember that the traditional, moderate preachers preach in Arabic, which few British-born Pakistanis and other Muslims understand. Since Islam discourages the study of the Quran in any language but the original Arabic to avoid corruptions in the translation process, very few British-born Muslims actually know the Quran as it was written, and these preachers can impose their spin on their teachings without anyone knowing any better. They start off by raising matters that are, to be frank, shared by most of the British population (eg. the injustice of Palestine, the imperialism of Bush's America, etc). Once they have ready ears, they move onto more disputed ground, placing their teachings in the bigger picture of Islam as they see it. Thus they offer their disciples a social identity, a chance to fight against injustice, and the chance to make a difference in this impersonal world.

What we've been doing is raising a new generation of preachers who will teach the traditional moderate form of Islam, but do so in English to reach the younger audience. The effects probably won't be apparent for another decade, but IMHO it's the right way forward.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

If you took away the Churches, then the Religion, and the culture that these Institutions bring with them, would fall apart into chaos and depravity, sexy depravity and abortions and guns.

Other than the guns, that sounds like the USA Green Party's platform....

[Leet Eriksson]

UAE has at least several orthodox, catholic, methodist churches and at least one Orthodox Library built by a muslim business man even.

Oman roughly has 45% of its workers that are either christian or hindu.

Most of North Africa has synagogues, as well as Yemen were the jews are freely practicing their religion and also protected from harm, as far as i know Yemen even allows the jewish yemenites to vote.

Also LOL adding central asian countries, as far as i know even Iran respects and protects its jewish citizens.

EDIT: speaking of turkey which is on the list, if you want recent, as far as i know it has nothing to do with Islam, its a racial beef with the kurds and armenians to one extent or another.

[Mooks]

Usually people dont respond to my comments. I like to see that they are at least being read :2thumbsup:

Christrianity has done alot of stuff its not proud of in the past. But thats just it In the past. Christrianity teaches peace, and forgiveness. If a person isnt doing these things, then he is not truly christrian.

[Leet Eriksson]

Usually people dont respond to my comments. I like to see that they are at least being read :2thumbsup:

Christrianity has done alot of stuff its not proud of in the past. But thats just it In the past. Christrianity teaches peace, and forgiveness. If a person isnt doing these things, then he is not truly christrian.

Just fyi, same goes for muslims:

www.noterror.info

[sharrukin]

UAE has at least several orthodox, catholic, methodist churches and at least one Orthodox Library built by a muslim business man even.

http://www.domini.org/openbook/ghalib.htm

"A religious court in the United Arab Emirates sentenced a Lebanese Christian to one-
year imprisonment and 39 whip lashes because he had married a Muslim woman. This
was reported by Amnesty International on 14 November 1996."

December 17, 2002 - Rev. Fernando Alconga was temporarily released from prison pending further investigation into his case. According to Compass Direct news agency, Articles 320 and 322 of the UAE penal code call for a minimum of one year imprisonment and a 1,000 dirham fine for anyone found guilty of possessing "propaganda" for faiths other than Islam, provided there is an intent to distribute said materials. (Compass Direct)

November 12, 2002 - Filipino pastor Fernando Alconga was arrested by two members of the Criminal Investigation Division (CID) outside of the Al Bustan Center in Al Qusais, Dubai. Rev. Alconga was asleep in his car at the Al Bustan Center in Al Qusais, Dubai when he was approached by two men requesting Christian materials in Arabic. The previous day Rev. Alconga had given a package of information called "The God Story" to an Egyptian Arab outside of the same building. After being informed that he had no materials in Arabic, the men requested that Rev. Alconga show them his supply of materials in other languages, which he did. At that point the men identified themselves as CID agents and arrested Rev. Alconga for distributing Christian materials, which included cassette tapes, tracts, and New Testaments. (Middle East Concern)

March 21, 2001 – The BBC reported that three American missionaries have been detained in Dubai for distributing Christian videos and CDs. A fourth person was later arrested for helping to arrange visas for the missionaries. Though Christian churches are allowed to function openly in the U.A.E., proselytism is illegal.



Oman roughly has 45% of its workers that are either christian or hindu.

http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2005/61696.htm
"The law provides for freedom of religion within the limits of the law; however, the government generally restricted this right in practice. The law provides that Islam is the state religion and that Shari'a is the source of all legislation."

"Although the law does not prohibit proselytizing, the government prohibited non-Muslims from proselytizing Muslims, while proselytizing of non-Muslims by Muslims was allowed. The government also prohibited non-Muslim groups from publishing religious material, although religious material printed abroad could be brought into the country."

"The government required all imams to preach sermons within the parameters of standardized texts distributed monthly by the Ministry of Religious Affairs and Endowments."

"The government also monitored sermons of non-Muslim clergy."

http://www.cameljockeys.org/background.html
And of course slavery;

"These children, some as young as 3 years old, are forced to work up to 18 hours a day in the scorching heat of the deserts. Those unable to stay awake for the hours of grueling work are given a “karba” (electric shock), while those who decide to disobey orders or play games are beaten and tortured. Stories of cruelty inflicted on many of the children rescued by Ansar Burney Trust involved them being tied up in chains in the desert heat, beaten with metal rods and leather whips, cut with blades and being raped by their “owners”.



Most of North Africa has synagogues, as well as Yemen were the jews are freely practicing their religion and also protected from harm, as far as i know Yemen even allows the jewish yemenites to vote.

ALGERIA;
http://www.bh.org.il/communities/Archive/Oran.asp
"The city's Jewish community of almost thirty thousand people continued its regular life, but in February 1956 rioters attacked Jewish property."

"Legislation adopted by the newly independent Algeria granted Algerian citizenship only to those residents whose father or paternal grandfather were Muslims. Moreover, the Supreme Court of Justice of Algeria declared that the Jews were no longer under the protection of the Law. The great massacres against the European population in June 1962 brought about the immediate exodus of the Jewish community of Oran during the following months. In 1963, a year after Algeria gained its independence from France, there were only 850 Jews left in Oran."

"The worsening economic situation brought about by anti-Jewish boycott and other discriminations only strengthened in late 1960's. The departure of the few Jews left in Oran continued throughout the decade with less than 400 still living in the city in 1968."

"The Great synagogue was converted into a mosque in 1975. By the early 2000's there do not seem to have been any Jews living in Oran."

MOROCCO; 1948 Jewish population: 265,000, - 2003: 5,500
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/anti-semitism/morocjews.html

"June 1948, bloody riots in Oujda and Djerada killed 44 Jews and wounded scores more. That same year, an unofficial economic boycott was instigated against Moroccan Jews."

" In 1965, Moroccan writer Said Ghallab described the attitude of his fellow Muslims toward their Jewish neighbors:

The worst insult that a Moroccan could possibly offer was to treat someone as a Jew....My childhood friends have remained anti-Jewish. They hide their virulent anti-Semitism by contending that the State of Israel was the creature of Western imperialism....A whole Hitlerite myth is being cultivated among the populace. The massacres of the Jews by Hitler are exalted ecstatically. It is even credited that Hitler is not dead, but alive and well, and his arrival is awaited to deliver the Arabs from Israel"

"Morocco has one of the most tolerant environments for Jews in the Arab world"

TUNISIA; 1948 Jewish population: 105,000, - 2003: 1,500
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/anti-semitism/tunisjews.html
"After Tunisia gained independence in 1956, a series of anti-Jewish government decrees were promulgated. In 1958, Tunisia's Jewish Community Council was abolished by the government and ancient synagogues, cemeteries and Jewish quarters were destroyed for "urban renewal."

"The increasingly unstable situation caused more than 40,000 Tunisian Jews to immigrate to Israel. By 1967, the country's Jewish population had shrunk to 20,000."

"During the Six-Day War, Jews were attacked by rioting Arab mobs, and synagogues and shops were burned."

"Today, the 1,300 Jews comprise the country's largest indigenous religious minority"

YEMEN; 1948 Jewish population: 50,000 - 2003 250 to 600 left

"1905 – Reintroduction of earlier Yemen laws forbids all Jews to build higher houses than Muslims, to raise their voices in front of Muslims, or to engage in religious discussion or in any traditional Muslim trade or occupation."

"1920s – Yemen Jews ousted from textile and soap trades, and forced to train Muslims to take their place."

"In 1922, the government of Yemen reintroduced an ancient Islamic law that
decreed that Jewish orphans under age 12 were to be forcibly converted to
Islam."

"1933 – Anti-Jewish attacks in Aden. Many Jews stoned and stabbed by Arab rioters"

"In 1947, after the partition vote, Muslim rioters, joined by the local police
force, engaged in a bloody pogrom in Aden that killed 82 Jews and destroyed
hundreds of Jewish homes. Aden's Jewish community was economically paralyzed,
as most of the Jewish stores and businesses were destroyed. Early in 1948,
looting occurred after six Jews were falsely accused of the ritual murder of
two Arab girls."

"Operation Magic Carpet was an operation between June 1949 and September 1950 that brought 45,000 Yemenite Jews to the new state of Israel. British and American transport planes made some 380 flights from Aden, in a secret operation that was not made public until several months after it was over."

"Members of the community say there may be no more than 250 Jews
left, but official figures put the number at 600."



Also LOL adding central asian countries, as far as i know even Iran respects and protects its jewish citizens.

"any Iranian who dares travel to Israel faces imprisonment and passport confiscation."

"The Jewish population is less than half the number that lived here before the Islamic revolution of 1979."
85000 in 1978, and perhaps 25,000, remain.

"Before the revolution, Jews were well-represented among Iran's business elite, holding key posts in the oil industry, banking and law, as well as in the traditional bazaar. The wave of anti-Israeli sentiment that swept Iran during the revolution, as well as large-scale confiscations of private wealth, sent thousands of the more affluent Jews fleeing to the United States or Israel. Those remaining lived in fear of pogroms, or massacres."

"Iranian Jews say they socialize far less with Muslims now than before the revolution. As a whole, they occupy their own separate space within the rigid confines of the Islamic republic, a protected yet precarious niche."

"Jewish women, like Muslim women, are required by law to keep their heads covered, although most eschew the chador for a simple scarf."

"Testimony from Jews who have left Iran suggests more serious problems than those cited by Jews inside the country. In written testimony to a congressional subcommittee in February 1996, an Iranian Jew complained of being imprisoned for two years on trumped-up charges of spying for Israel. He also said his arrest was preceded by harassment at work and pressure to convert to Islam."

"Although many Jews hold jobs in government ministries or within state-owned firms, they say they are unlikely to rise to top positions. In addition, Iran's strict Islamic law, or ''sharia,'' contains many discriminatory provisions toward non-Muslims."



EDIT: speaking of turkey which is on the list, if you want recent, as far as i know it has nothing to do with Islam, its a racial beef with the kurds and armenians to one extent or another.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3273077.stm

http://www.economist.com/World/europe/displayStory.cfm?story_id=4112336&tranMode=none

"Some 3,000 Syriacs in the south-east say their land and houses have been seized, not just by Kurds, but also by the state. In Kayseri, an American couple were recently sent death threats by e-mail because they are "Christian." A Protestant pastor in Izmit province received a menacing letter and found a red swastika painted on his door. In Tarsus, a New Zealand missionary was beaten up and then told to leave by the mayor."

"The government's failure to denounce these attacks has been aggravated by its attempts to sell land in Bardakci that the Syriacs claim as their own. They have petitioned the authorities in Ankara, who have yet to respond. Some observers see this as a sign of the "reform fatigue" bedeviling the government of Recep Tayyip Erdogan ever since he won the date of October 3rd for the start of EU membership talks. Others detect a mounting campaign against Christians by Islamist forces within Mr Erdogan's party."

"One shot was fired by the state institution that micro-manages religious life in Turkey, when it issued a sermon on March 11th to be preached at some 75,000 officially registered mosques. The sermon talked of the dangers posed to national unity by missionaries, who "work as a part of a plan to cut the ties of our citizens with the [Islamic] faith." This was followed by a statement by Mehmet Aydin, the minister for religious affairs, calling missionary activities "separatist and destructive."

[Gawain of Orkeny]

The Quran itself makes it look disgusting as well.

The life of their prophet, his deeds and actions ( I get as many women as I want and 9 year olds as well) , rapes, massacres, pillaging, also make it look disgusting.

The history of their conduct through the ages are consistent with the Quran.

The conduct of their adherents to this day, continues unabated...the slavery in Sudan, Mauritania, and other places. The Janjaweed raiders, Beslan, terrorists, Muhjadeen, etc continues just as it did in the days of the Ghazi raiders. Their intolerance towards other religions. Their reactionary attitude towards dangerous cartoons, and speeches. Nothing has changed...in a thousand years, nothing has changed.


:2thumbsup: :shakehands:

The only thing thats changed is their power . They seek to return to the good old days of the Caliphate. I say again the radicals are the true followers of Mohamed and Islam.

[kataphraktoi]

Just like to know the following:

1) Do the majority of Muslims live in the Western world or in their own countries of origin (Middle East, SEAsia, Central Asia, North Africa)?

2) How many of them have access to education?

Now, I want to know the following:

1) Does this make them susceptible to xtremist teachings by the educated political and religious elite?

[Leet Eriksson]

Sharrukin:

In the UAE proselytism is Illegal, the last 3 cases is based on that. Tough for the lebanese guy, we have some laws that makes it hard for citizens to marry non-citizens including other arabs.

On Oman, i don't see anything wrong with the first part, and the only thing you brought up is camel jockey slavery, which was banned, and has nothing to do with Islam.


lots of north africa stuff

I'm talking about now and today, not during the rise of Arab nationalism. If thats your only ammo, then please try again. Yemens jews can still vote though.


Iran

Jee wizz, lets try again shall we?

Why are there still jews in Iran if Islam is such an opressive religion?

Oh this is a gem:

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1131043721479&pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull


Turkey

Oh hay them cute Missionaries again, and some land dispute that has nothing to do with religion.

Oh hay a sermon was distributed thats anti missionary BAD ISLAM BAD.

I've yet to see daily forced conversions and massacres of non-muslims.

[Banquo's Ghost]

Why are there still jews in Iran if Islam is such an opressive religion?

Oh this is a gem:

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1131043721479&pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull


You might be interested in this article (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/5367892.stm) Leet, which I found most enlightening. The BBC is doing a small season of challenging programmes (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/middle_east/2006/inside_iran/default.stm) about Iran, from listening to which I have learned a great deal, not least about President Ahmadinejad.

EDIT: Found the link to the actual radio broadcasts (http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/iran/).

[Leet Eriksson]

You might be interested in this article (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/5367892.stm) Leet, which I found most enlightening. The BBC is doing a small season of challenging programmes (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/middle_east/2006/inside_iran/default.stm) about Iran, from listening to which I have learned a great deal, not least about President Ahmadinejad.

EDIT: Found the link to the actual radio broadcasts (http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/iran/).

Thats enlightning indeed, thank you for the article ~:)

[Randarkmaan]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/5367892.stm

To be honest the content of this article surprised me a bit (in a good way)

[sharrukin]

Sharrukin:
Why are there still jews in Iran if Islam is such an opressive religion?

Oh this is a gem:

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1131043721479&pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull

I've yet to see daily forced conversions and massacres of non-muslims.

No DAILY MASSACRES. Sorry about that! I guess even Muslims get tired, and need to take a break. It is rather clear that you have no interest in the truth, or in fact responding to any arguments or counter-points put forward.

60,000 Iranian Jews leave Iran and you seriously think that one Israeli Jew moving to iran is an argument? This is a "Man Bites Dog" defence. You have chosen to believe something and clearly that is all there is to it!



Jee wizz, lets try again shall we?


No, lets not!

[Scurvy]

No DAILY MASSACRES. Sorry about that! I guess even Muslims get tired, and need to take a break.


Thats not very nice :no:

As far as i can tell just as Jewish dont like having Muslims in their country, the same goes for the other way around.... although this article makes it clear that there are notable exceptions, I agree with your second paragraph Sharrukin (which iv conveniently left out :oops: ) but that kind of comment really spoils it....

[sharrukin]

Thats not very nice :no:

As far as i can tell just as Jewish dont like having Muslims in their country, the same goes for the other way around.... I agree with your second paragraph Sharrukin (which iv conveniently left out :oops: ) but that kind of comment really spoils it....

The Jews DO HAVE Muslims in their country. About a million of them. Israeli citizens and with the same rights as Jewish citizens, mosques and all.

The massacres have taken place and the point is that he seems to be willing to accept any conduct on the part of Muslims, and allows willing to find any excuse for what they do. I was not saying that Muslims massacre non-Muslims on a daily basis, but rather that his expectations of Muslims are dismally low, if that is what they must do to be condemned by him.

[Mooks]

Id rather not live in a country, where at the first sign of a false news report there is a chance your worshipping place will get blown up.

[Tribesman]

The Jews DO HAVE Muslims in their country. About a million of them. Israeli citizens and with the same rights as Jewish citizens, mosques and all.
:no:
They do not have the same rights , just as Jews who are the wrong sort of Jew do not have the same rights in Israel .
It is quite a contentious issue in Israel , and has been since the formation of the State .

[tibilicus]

Those muslims make me chuckle.


Ah well who cares my countrys not torn apart and isn't horrible place to live because of my religion.

That made me chuckle to.

:laugh4:

[Dâriûsh]

Those muslims make me chuckle.


Ah well who cares my countrys not torn apart and isn't horrible place to live because of my religion.

That made me chuckle to.

:laugh4:

HAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!



~:rolleyes:

[Papewaio]

Well I just slapped down a pair of 2 point warnings.

Play nicely in the backroom, no bashing other patrons or countries. Make jokes, rib each other, but if you are rude you will get slapped.

As for this thread it is closed.